Business of Medicine

Sitting at a patient’s bedside is one of the behaviors associated with better doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction, and trust. During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.

A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.

The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).

The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.

The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).

The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).

In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.

The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sitting at a patient’s bedside is one of the behaviors associated with better doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction, and trust. During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.

A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.

The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).

The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.

The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).

The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).

In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.

The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sitting at a patient’s bedside is one of the behaviors associated with better doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction, and trust. During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.

A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.

The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).

The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.

The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).

The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).

In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.

The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A medical student’s life is an endless cycle of classes, exams, clinical rotations, and residency preparation. While students typically have little free time, some still manage to build a mega social media presence. On TikTok and Instagram, among other sites, they share medical school experiences and lessons learned in the classroom and advocate for causes such as increased diversity and gender rights in the medical field.

This news organization caught up with a few social media influencers with a large online following to learn how medical students can effectively use social media to build a professional brand and network. Most of the students interviewed said that their social media platforms offered an opportunity to educate others about significant medical developments, feel part of a community with a like-minded audience, and network with doctors who may lead them to a future residency or career path.

Many med students said that they built their large audiences by creating a platform for people of their ethnic background, nationality, race, gender, or simply what others weren’t already talking about. They said they saw a niche in social media that was missing or others hadn’t tackled in the same way.

When Joel Bervell began med school in 2020, he questioned some of the lessons he learned about how race is used in medical practice, which didn’t make sense to him. So, he began his own research. He had about 2000 followers on Instagram at the time.

Mr. Bervell read a new study about pulse oximeters and how they often produce misleading readings on patients with dark skin.

He wondered why he hadn’t learned this in medical school, so he posted it on TikTok. Within 24 hours, about 500,000 people viewed it. Most of the comments were from doctors, nurses, and physician assistants who said they weren’t aware of the disparity.

While his initial posts detailed his journey to medical school and a day-in-the-life of a medical student, he transitioned to posts primarily about race, health equity, and what he perceives as racial bias in medicine.

Now, the fourth-year Ghanaian-American student at the Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine at Washington State University Spokane has close to 1.2 million followers on Instagram and TikTok combined. He frequently visits the White House to advise on social media’s influence on healthcare and has appeared on the Kelly Clarkson Show, Good Morning America, CNN, and ABC, among others.

He said he also uses social media to translate complex medical information for a general audience, many of whom access health information online so they can manage their own healthcare. He sees his social media work as an extension of his medical education, allowing him to delve deeper into subjects and report on them as if he were publishing research in a medical journal.

“When I came to medical school, yes, I wanted to be a doctor. But I also wanted to impact people.” Social media allows him to educate many more people than individual patients, the 29-year-old told this news organization.
 

Inspiring Minorities

Tabhata Paulet, 27, started her TikTok presence as a premed student in 2021. She aimed to provide free resources to help low-income, first-generation Latinx students like herself study for standardized exams.

“I always looked online for guidance and resources, and the medical influencers did not share a similar background. So, I shared my story and what I had to do as a first-generation and first person in my family to become a physician. I did not have access to the same resources as my peers,” said Ms. Paulet, who was born in Peru and came to New Jersey as a child.

Students who are Hispanic, Latinx, or of Spanish origin made up 6.8% of total medical school enrollment in 2023-2024, up slightly from 6.7% in 2022-2023, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

Ms. Paulet’s online presence grew when she began documenting her experiences as a first-year medical student, bridging the language barrier for Spanish-speaking patients so they could understand their diagnosis and treatment. She often posts about health disparity and barriers to care for underserved communities.

Most of her nearly 22,000 followers are Hispanic, said the now fourth-year student at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey. “I talk a lot about my interesting Spanish-speaking patients ... and how sometimes speaking their native language truly makes a difference in their care.”

She believes that she serves an important role in social media. “It can be very inspirational for those who come after you [in med school] to see someone from a similar culture and upbringing.”
 

Creating a Community

It was during a therapy session 4 years ago that Jeremy “JP” Scott decided to share Instagram posts about his experiences as a nontraditional medical student. The 37-year-old was studying at Ross University School of Medicine in Barbados and was feeling lonely as an international medical student training to be a doctor as a second career.

Before starting med school, Mr. Scott was an adjunct professor and lab supervisor at the University of Hartford Biology Department, West Hartford, Connecticut, and then a research assistant and lab manager at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia.

Although he wanted to follow his mother’s path to becoming a doctor, it was more difficult than he envisioned, said the fourth-year student who completed clinical rotations in the United States and is now applying for residencies.

“I talked about how medical school is not what it appears to be ... There are a lot of challenges we are going through,” especially as people of color, he said.

Mr. Scott believes social media helps people feel included and less alone. He said many of his followers are med students and physicians.

His posts often focus on LGBTQIA+ pride and being a minority as a Black man in medicine.

“The pandemic spurred a lot of us. We had a racial reckoning in our country at the time. It inspired us to talk as Black creators and Black medical students.”

Black or African American medical students made up 8.5% of total med school enrollment in 2023-2024, a slight increase from 2022 to 2023, according to AAMC figures. Black men represented 7% of total enrollment in 2023-2024, while Black women represented 9.8%.

After only a handful of online posts in which Mr. Scott candidly discussed his mental health struggles and relationships, he attracted the attention of several medical apparel companies, including the popular FIGS scrubs. He’s now an ambassador for the company, which supports him and his content.

“My association with FIGS has helped attract a wider online audience, increasing my presence.” Today, he has 14,000 Instagram followers. “It opened up so many opportunities,” Mr. Scott said. One example is working with the national LGBTQIA+ community.

“The goal was never to be a social media influencer, to gain sponsorships or photo opportunities,” he said.

“My job, first, is as a medical student. Everything else is second. I am not trying to be a professional social media personality. I’m trying to be an actual physician.” He also tries to separate JP “social media” from Jeremy, the medical student.

“On Instagram, anyone can pull it up and see what you’re doing. The last thing I want is for them to think that I’m not serious about what I’m doing, that I’m not here to learn and become a doctor.”
 

Benefits and Drawbacks

Ms. Paulet said her social media following helped her connect with leaders in the Latinx medical community, including an obstetrics anesthesiologist, her intended specialty. “I don’t think I’d be able to do that without a social media platform.”

Her online activity also propelled her from regional to national leadership in the Latino Medical Student Association (LMSA). She now also runs their Instagram page, which has 14,000 followers.

Mr. Bervell believes social media is a great way to network. He’s connected with people he wouldn’t have met otherwise, including physicians. “I think it will help me get into a residency,” he said. “It allows people to know who you are ... They will be able to tell in a few videos the type of doctor I want to be.”

On the other hand, Mr. Bervell is aware of the negative impacts of social media on mental health. “You can get lost in social media.” For that reason, he often tries to disconnect. “I can go days without my phone.”

Posting on social media can be time-consuming, Mr. Bervell admitted. He said he spent about 2 hours a day researching, editing, and posting on TikTok when he first started building his following. Now, he spends about 2-3 hours a week creating videos. “I don’t post every day anymore. I don’t have the time.”

When she started building her TikTok presence, Ms. Paulet said she devoted 15 hours a week to the endeavor, but now she spends 10-12 hours a week posting online, including on LMSA’s Instagram page. “Whenever you are done with an exam or have a study break, this is something fun to do.” She also says you never know who you’re going to inspire when you put yourself out there.

“Talk about your journey, rotations, or your experience in your first or second year of medical school. Talk about milestones like board exams.”
 

Word to the Wise

Some students may be concerned that their posts might affect a potential residency program. But the medical students interviewed say they want to find programs that align with their values and accept them for who they are.

Mr. Scott said he’s not worried about someone not liking him because of who he is. “I am Black and openly gay. If it’s a problem, I don’t need to work with you or your institution.”

Mr. Bervell stressed that medical students should stay professional online. “I reach 5-10 million people a month, and I have to think: Would I want them to see this? You have to know at all times that someone is watching. I’m very careful about how I post. I script out every video.”

Mr. Scott agreed. He advises those interested in becoming medical influencers to know what they can’t post online. For example, to ensure safety and privacy, Mr. Scott doesn’t take photos in the hospital, show his medical badge, or post patient information. “You want to be respectful of your future medical profession,” he said.

“If it’s something my mother would be ashamed of, I don’t need to post about it.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A medical student’s life is an endless cycle of classes, exams, clinical rotations, and residency preparation. While students typically have little free time, some still manage to build a mega social media presence. On TikTok and Instagram, among other sites, they share medical school experiences and lessons learned in the classroom and advocate for causes such as increased diversity and gender rights in the medical field.

This news organization caught up with a few social media influencers with a large online following to learn how medical students can effectively use social media to build a professional brand and network. Most of the students interviewed said that their social media platforms offered an opportunity to educate others about significant medical developments, feel part of a community with a like-minded audience, and network with doctors who may lead them to a future residency or career path.

Many med students said that they built their large audiences by creating a platform for people of their ethnic background, nationality, race, gender, or simply what others weren’t already talking about. They said they saw a niche in social media that was missing or others hadn’t tackled in the same way.

When Joel Bervell began med school in 2020, he questioned some of the lessons he learned about how race is used in medical practice, which didn’t make sense to him. So, he began his own research. He had about 2000 followers on Instagram at the time.

Mr. Bervell read a new study about pulse oximeters and how they often produce misleading readings on patients with dark skin.

He wondered why he hadn’t learned this in medical school, so he posted it on TikTok. Within 24 hours, about 500,000 people viewed it. Most of the comments were from doctors, nurses, and physician assistants who said they weren’t aware of the disparity.

While his initial posts detailed his journey to medical school and a day-in-the-life of a medical student, he transitioned to posts primarily about race, health equity, and what he perceives as racial bias in medicine.

Now, the fourth-year Ghanaian-American student at the Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine at Washington State University Spokane has close to 1.2 million followers on Instagram and TikTok combined. He frequently visits the White House to advise on social media’s influence on healthcare and has appeared on the Kelly Clarkson Show, Good Morning America, CNN, and ABC, among others.

He said he also uses social media to translate complex medical information for a general audience, many of whom access health information online so they can manage their own healthcare. He sees his social media work as an extension of his medical education, allowing him to delve deeper into subjects and report on them as if he were publishing research in a medical journal.

“When I came to medical school, yes, I wanted to be a doctor. But I also wanted to impact people.” Social media allows him to educate many more people than individual patients, the 29-year-old told this news organization.
 

Inspiring Minorities

Tabhata Paulet, 27, started her TikTok presence as a premed student in 2021. She aimed to provide free resources to help low-income, first-generation Latinx students like herself study for standardized exams.

“I always looked online for guidance and resources, and the medical influencers did not share a similar background. So, I shared my story and what I had to do as a first-generation and first person in my family to become a physician. I did not have access to the same resources as my peers,” said Ms. Paulet, who was born in Peru and came to New Jersey as a child.

Students who are Hispanic, Latinx, or of Spanish origin made up 6.8% of total medical school enrollment in 2023-2024, up slightly from 6.7% in 2022-2023, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

Ms. Paulet’s online presence grew when she began documenting her experiences as a first-year medical student, bridging the language barrier for Spanish-speaking patients so they could understand their diagnosis and treatment. She often posts about health disparity and barriers to care for underserved communities.

Most of her nearly 22,000 followers are Hispanic, said the now fourth-year student at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey. “I talk a lot about my interesting Spanish-speaking patients ... and how sometimes speaking their native language truly makes a difference in their care.”

She believes that she serves an important role in social media. “It can be very inspirational for those who come after you [in med school] to see someone from a similar culture and upbringing.”
 

Creating a Community

It was during a therapy session 4 years ago that Jeremy “JP” Scott decided to share Instagram posts about his experiences as a nontraditional medical student. The 37-year-old was studying at Ross University School of Medicine in Barbados and was feeling lonely as an international medical student training to be a doctor as a second career.

Before starting med school, Mr. Scott was an adjunct professor and lab supervisor at the University of Hartford Biology Department, West Hartford, Connecticut, and then a research assistant and lab manager at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia.

Although he wanted to follow his mother’s path to becoming a doctor, it was more difficult than he envisioned, said the fourth-year student who completed clinical rotations in the United States and is now applying for residencies.

“I talked about how medical school is not what it appears to be ... There are a lot of challenges we are going through,” especially as people of color, he said.

Mr. Scott believes social media helps people feel included and less alone. He said many of his followers are med students and physicians.

His posts often focus on LGBTQIA+ pride and being a minority as a Black man in medicine.

“The pandemic spurred a lot of us. We had a racial reckoning in our country at the time. It inspired us to talk as Black creators and Black medical students.”

Black or African American medical students made up 8.5% of total med school enrollment in 2023-2024, a slight increase from 2022 to 2023, according to AAMC figures. Black men represented 7% of total enrollment in 2023-2024, while Black women represented 9.8%.

After only a handful of online posts in which Mr. Scott candidly discussed his mental health struggles and relationships, he attracted the attention of several medical apparel companies, including the popular FIGS scrubs. He’s now an ambassador for the company, which supports him and his content.

“My association with FIGS has helped attract a wider online audience, increasing my presence.” Today, he has 14,000 Instagram followers. “It opened up so many opportunities,” Mr. Scott said. One example is working with the national LGBTQIA+ community.

“The goal was never to be a social media influencer, to gain sponsorships or photo opportunities,” he said.

“My job, first, is as a medical student. Everything else is second. I am not trying to be a professional social media personality. I’m trying to be an actual physician.” He also tries to separate JP “social media” from Jeremy, the medical student.

“On Instagram, anyone can pull it up and see what you’re doing. The last thing I want is for them to think that I’m not serious about what I’m doing, that I’m not here to learn and become a doctor.”
 

Benefits and Drawbacks

Ms. Paulet said her social media following helped her connect with leaders in the Latinx medical community, including an obstetrics anesthesiologist, her intended specialty. “I don’t think I’d be able to do that without a social media platform.”

Her online activity also propelled her from regional to national leadership in the Latino Medical Student Association (LMSA). She now also runs their Instagram page, which has 14,000 followers.

Mr. Bervell believes social media is a great way to network. He’s connected with people he wouldn’t have met otherwise, including physicians. “I think it will help me get into a residency,” he said. “It allows people to know who you are ... They will be able to tell in a few videos the type of doctor I want to be.”

On the other hand, Mr. Bervell is aware of the negative impacts of social media on mental health. “You can get lost in social media.” For that reason, he often tries to disconnect. “I can go days without my phone.”

Posting on social media can be time-consuming, Mr. Bervell admitted. He said he spent about 2 hours a day researching, editing, and posting on TikTok when he first started building his following. Now, he spends about 2-3 hours a week creating videos. “I don’t post every day anymore. I don’t have the time.”

When she started building her TikTok presence, Ms. Paulet said she devoted 15 hours a week to the endeavor, but now she spends 10-12 hours a week posting online, including on LMSA’s Instagram page. “Whenever you are done with an exam or have a study break, this is something fun to do.” She also says you never know who you’re going to inspire when you put yourself out there.

“Talk about your journey, rotations, or your experience in your first or second year of medical school. Talk about milestones like board exams.”
 

Word to the Wise

Some students may be concerned that their posts might affect a potential residency program. But the medical students interviewed say they want to find programs that align with their values and accept them for who they are.

Mr. Scott said he’s not worried about someone not liking him because of who he is. “I am Black and openly gay. If it’s a problem, I don’t need to work with you or your institution.”

Mr. Bervell stressed that medical students should stay professional online. “I reach 5-10 million people a month, and I have to think: Would I want them to see this? You have to know at all times that someone is watching. I’m very careful about how I post. I script out every video.”

Mr. Scott agreed. He advises those interested in becoming medical influencers to know what they can’t post online. For example, to ensure safety and privacy, Mr. Scott doesn’t take photos in the hospital, show his medical badge, or post patient information. “You want to be respectful of your future medical profession,” he said.

“If it’s something my mother would be ashamed of, I don’t need to post about it.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A medical student’s life is an endless cycle of classes, exams, clinical rotations, and residency preparation. While students typically have little free time, some still manage to build a mega social media presence. On TikTok and Instagram, among other sites, they share medical school experiences and lessons learned in the classroom and advocate for causes such as increased diversity and gender rights in the medical field.

This news organization caught up with a few social media influencers with a large online following to learn how medical students can effectively use social media to build a professional brand and network. Most of the students interviewed said that their social media platforms offered an opportunity to educate others about significant medical developments, feel part of a community with a like-minded audience, and network with doctors who may lead them to a future residency or career path.

Many med students said that they built their large audiences by creating a platform for people of their ethnic background, nationality, race, gender, or simply what others weren’t already talking about. They said they saw a niche in social media that was missing or others hadn’t tackled in the same way.

When Joel Bervell began med school in 2020, he questioned some of the lessons he learned about how race is used in medical practice, which didn’t make sense to him. So, he began his own research. He had about 2000 followers on Instagram at the time.

Mr. Bervell read a new study about pulse oximeters and how they often produce misleading readings on patients with dark skin.

He wondered why he hadn’t learned this in medical school, so he posted it on TikTok. Within 24 hours, about 500,000 people viewed it. Most of the comments were from doctors, nurses, and physician assistants who said they weren’t aware of the disparity.

While his initial posts detailed his journey to medical school and a day-in-the-life of a medical student, he transitioned to posts primarily about race, health equity, and what he perceives as racial bias in medicine.

Now, the fourth-year Ghanaian-American student at the Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine at Washington State University Spokane has close to 1.2 million followers on Instagram and TikTok combined. He frequently visits the White House to advise on social media’s influence on healthcare and has appeared on the Kelly Clarkson Show, Good Morning America, CNN, and ABC, among others.

He said he also uses social media to translate complex medical information for a general audience, many of whom access health information online so they can manage their own healthcare. He sees his social media work as an extension of his medical education, allowing him to delve deeper into subjects and report on them as if he were publishing research in a medical journal.

“When I came to medical school, yes, I wanted to be a doctor. But I also wanted to impact people.” Social media allows him to educate many more people than individual patients, the 29-year-old told this news organization.
 

Inspiring Minorities

Tabhata Paulet, 27, started her TikTok presence as a premed student in 2021. She aimed to provide free resources to help low-income, first-generation Latinx students like herself study for standardized exams.

“I always looked online for guidance and resources, and the medical influencers did not share a similar background. So, I shared my story and what I had to do as a first-generation and first person in my family to become a physician. I did not have access to the same resources as my peers,” said Ms. Paulet, who was born in Peru and came to New Jersey as a child.

Students who are Hispanic, Latinx, or of Spanish origin made up 6.8% of total medical school enrollment in 2023-2024, up slightly from 6.7% in 2022-2023, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

Ms. Paulet’s online presence grew when she began documenting her experiences as a first-year medical student, bridging the language barrier for Spanish-speaking patients so they could understand their diagnosis and treatment. She often posts about health disparity and barriers to care for underserved communities.

Most of her nearly 22,000 followers are Hispanic, said the now fourth-year student at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey. “I talk a lot about my interesting Spanish-speaking patients ... and how sometimes speaking their native language truly makes a difference in their care.”

She believes that she serves an important role in social media. “It can be very inspirational for those who come after you [in med school] to see someone from a similar culture and upbringing.”
 

Creating a Community

It was during a therapy session 4 years ago that Jeremy “JP” Scott decided to share Instagram posts about his experiences as a nontraditional medical student. The 37-year-old was studying at Ross University School of Medicine in Barbados and was feeling lonely as an international medical student training to be a doctor as a second career.

Before starting med school, Mr. Scott was an adjunct professor and lab supervisor at the University of Hartford Biology Department, West Hartford, Connecticut, and then a research assistant and lab manager at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia.

Although he wanted to follow his mother’s path to becoming a doctor, it was more difficult than he envisioned, said the fourth-year student who completed clinical rotations in the United States and is now applying for residencies.

“I talked about how medical school is not what it appears to be ... There are a lot of challenges we are going through,” especially as people of color, he said.

Mr. Scott believes social media helps people feel included and less alone. He said many of his followers are med students and physicians.

His posts often focus on LGBTQIA+ pride and being a minority as a Black man in medicine.

“The pandemic spurred a lot of us. We had a racial reckoning in our country at the time. It inspired us to talk as Black creators and Black medical students.”

Black or African American medical students made up 8.5% of total med school enrollment in 2023-2024, a slight increase from 2022 to 2023, according to AAMC figures. Black men represented 7% of total enrollment in 2023-2024, while Black women represented 9.8%.

After only a handful of online posts in which Mr. Scott candidly discussed his mental health struggles and relationships, he attracted the attention of several medical apparel companies, including the popular FIGS scrubs. He’s now an ambassador for the company, which supports him and his content.

“My association with FIGS has helped attract a wider online audience, increasing my presence.” Today, he has 14,000 Instagram followers. “It opened up so many opportunities,” Mr. Scott said. One example is working with the national LGBTQIA+ community.

“The goal was never to be a social media influencer, to gain sponsorships or photo opportunities,” he said.

“My job, first, is as a medical student. Everything else is second. I am not trying to be a professional social media personality. I’m trying to be an actual physician.” He also tries to separate JP “social media” from Jeremy, the medical student.

“On Instagram, anyone can pull it up and see what you’re doing. The last thing I want is for them to think that I’m not serious about what I’m doing, that I’m not here to learn and become a doctor.”
 

Benefits and Drawbacks

Ms. Paulet said her social media following helped her connect with leaders in the Latinx medical community, including an obstetrics anesthesiologist, her intended specialty. “I don’t think I’d be able to do that without a social media platform.”

Her online activity also propelled her from regional to national leadership in the Latino Medical Student Association (LMSA). She now also runs their Instagram page, which has 14,000 followers.

Mr. Bervell believes social media is a great way to network. He’s connected with people he wouldn’t have met otherwise, including physicians. “I think it will help me get into a residency,” he said. “It allows people to know who you are ... They will be able to tell in a few videos the type of doctor I want to be.”

On the other hand, Mr. Bervell is aware of the negative impacts of social media on mental health. “You can get lost in social media.” For that reason, he often tries to disconnect. “I can go days without my phone.”

Posting on social media can be time-consuming, Mr. Bervell admitted. He said he spent about 2 hours a day researching, editing, and posting on TikTok when he first started building his following. Now, he spends about 2-3 hours a week creating videos. “I don’t post every day anymore. I don’t have the time.”

When she started building her TikTok presence, Ms. Paulet said she devoted 15 hours a week to the endeavor, but now she spends 10-12 hours a week posting online, including on LMSA’s Instagram page. “Whenever you are done with an exam or have a study break, this is something fun to do.” She also says you never know who you’re going to inspire when you put yourself out there.

“Talk about your journey, rotations, or your experience in your first or second year of medical school. Talk about milestones like board exams.”
 

Word to the Wise

Some students may be concerned that their posts might affect a potential residency program. But the medical students interviewed say they want to find programs that align with their values and accept them for who they are.

Mr. Scott said he’s not worried about someone not liking him because of who he is. “I am Black and openly gay. If it’s a problem, I don’t need to work with you or your institution.”

Mr. Bervell stressed that medical students should stay professional online. “I reach 5-10 million people a month, and I have to think: Would I want them to see this? You have to know at all times that someone is watching. I’m very careful about how I post. I script out every video.”

Mr. Scott agreed. He advises those interested in becoming medical influencers to know what they can’t post online. For example, to ensure safety and privacy, Mr. Scott doesn’t take photos in the hospital, show his medical badge, or post patient information. “You want to be respectful of your future medical profession,” he said.

“If it’s something my mother would be ashamed of, I don’t need to post about it.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Researchers identified thousands of census tracts as priority zones where improving the screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) may benefit Hispanic or Latino communities.

METHODOLOGY:

• Hispanic or Latino individuals have the lowest rate of CRC screening among the six broader census-designated racial or ethnic groups in the United States, while they face a high proportion of cancer deaths due to CRC.
• Researchers performed a cross-sectional ecologic study using 2021 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention PLACES and 2019 American Community Survey data to identify priority zones for CRC screening where intervention programs may be targeted.
• They analyzed a total of 72,136 US census tracts, representing 98.7% of all US census tracts.
• Nine race and ethnic groups were selected on the basis of the population size and categorizations used in prior research on health or cancer disparity: non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, Asian, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, and “other race.”
• Geographically weighted regression and Getis-Ord Gi* hot spot procedures were used to identify the screening priority zones for all Hispanic or Latino groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• The analysis identified 6519 hot spot tracts for Mexican, 3477 for Puerto Rican, 3522 for Central or South American, 1069 for Dominican, and 1424 for Cuban individuals. The average rates of screening for CRC were 57.2%, 59.9%, 59.3%, 58.9%, and 60.4%, respectively.
• The percentage of Cuban individuals showed a positive association with the CRC screening rate, while the percentage of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Dominican, and Central or South American Hispanic or Latino individuals and of the uninsured showed a negative association with the CRC screening rate.
• The priority zones for Mexican communities were primarily located in Texas and southwestern United States, while those for Puerto Rican, Central or South American, and other populations were located in southern Florida and the metro areas of New York City and Texas.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings and interactive web map may serve as a translational tool for public health authorities, policymakers, clinicians, and other stakeholders to target investment and interventions to increase guideline-concordant CRC screening uptake benefiting specific H/L [Hispanic or Latino] communities in the United States,” the authors wrote. “These data can inform more precise neighborhood-level interventions to increase CRC screening considering unique characteristics important for these H/L [Hispanic or Latino] groups.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by R. Blake Buchalter, PhD, MPH, Center for Populations Health Research, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, was published online in the American Journal of Public Health.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s cross-sectional design limited the ability to infer causality. The use of census tract-level data did not capture individual-level screening behaviors. The study did not account for nativity status or years of migration owing to the lack of data. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention PLACES dataset may not represent the actual screening delivered as it is based on survey data. 

DISCLOSURES:

The National Cancer Institute partially supported this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Researchers identified thousands of census tracts as priority zones where improving the screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) may benefit Hispanic or Latino communities.

METHODOLOGY:

• Hispanic or Latino individuals have the lowest rate of CRC screening among the six broader census-designated racial or ethnic groups in the United States, while they face a high proportion of cancer deaths due to CRC.
• Researchers performed a cross-sectional ecologic study using 2021 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention PLACES and 2019 American Community Survey data to identify priority zones for CRC screening where intervention programs may be targeted.
• They analyzed a total of 72,136 US census tracts, representing 98.7% of all US census tracts.
• Nine race and ethnic groups were selected on the basis of the population size and categorizations used in prior research on health or cancer disparity: non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, Asian, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, and “other race.”
• Geographically weighted regression and Getis-Ord Gi* hot spot procedures were used to identify the screening priority zones for all Hispanic or Latino groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• The analysis identified 6519 hot spot tracts for Mexican, 3477 for Puerto Rican, 3522 for Central or South American, 1069 for Dominican, and 1424 for Cuban individuals. The average rates of screening for CRC were 57.2%, 59.9%, 59.3%, 58.9%, and 60.4%, respectively.
• The percentage of Cuban individuals showed a positive association with the CRC screening rate, while the percentage of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Dominican, and Central or South American Hispanic or Latino individuals and of the uninsured showed a negative association with the CRC screening rate.
• The priority zones for Mexican communities were primarily located in Texas and southwestern United States, while those for Puerto Rican, Central or South American, and other populations were located in southern Florida and the metro areas of New York City and Texas.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings and interactive web map may serve as a translational tool for public health authorities, policymakers, clinicians, and other stakeholders to target investment and interventions to increase guideline-concordant CRC screening uptake benefiting specific H/L [Hispanic or Latino] communities in the United States,” the authors wrote. “These data can inform more precise neighborhood-level interventions to increase CRC screening considering unique characteristics important for these H/L [Hispanic or Latino] groups.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by R. Blake Buchalter, PhD, MPH, Center for Populations Health Research, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, was published online in the American Journal of Public Health.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s cross-sectional design limited the ability to infer causality. The use of census tract-level data did not capture individual-level screening behaviors. The study did not account for nativity status or years of migration owing to the lack of data. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention PLACES dataset may not represent the actual screening delivered as it is based on survey data. 

DISCLOSURES:

The National Cancer Institute partially supported this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Researchers identified thousands of census tracts as priority zones where improving the screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) may benefit Hispanic or Latino communities.

METHODOLOGY:

• Hispanic or Latino individuals have the lowest rate of CRC screening among the six broader census-designated racial or ethnic groups in the United States, while they face a high proportion of cancer deaths due to CRC.
• Researchers performed a cross-sectional ecologic study using 2021 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention PLACES and 2019 American Community Survey data to identify priority zones for CRC screening where intervention programs may be targeted.
• They analyzed a total of 72,136 US census tracts, representing 98.7% of all US census tracts.
• Nine race and ethnic groups were selected on the basis of the population size and categorizations used in prior research on health or cancer disparity: non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, Asian, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, and “other race.”
• Geographically weighted regression and Getis-Ord Gi* hot spot procedures were used to identify the screening priority zones for all Hispanic or Latino groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• The analysis identified 6519 hot spot tracts for Mexican, 3477 for Puerto Rican, 3522 for Central or South American, 1069 for Dominican, and 1424 for Cuban individuals. The average rates of screening for CRC were 57.2%, 59.9%, 59.3%, 58.9%, and 60.4%, respectively.
• The percentage of Cuban individuals showed a positive association with the CRC screening rate, while the percentage of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Dominican, and Central or South American Hispanic or Latino individuals and of the uninsured showed a negative association with the CRC screening rate.
• The priority zones for Mexican communities were primarily located in Texas and southwestern United States, while those for Puerto Rican, Central or South American, and other populations were located in southern Florida and the metro areas of New York City and Texas.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings and interactive web map may serve as a translational tool for public health authorities, policymakers, clinicians, and other stakeholders to target investment and interventions to increase guideline-concordant CRC screening uptake benefiting specific H/L [Hispanic or Latino] communities in the United States,” the authors wrote. “These data can inform more precise neighborhood-level interventions to increase CRC screening considering unique characteristics important for these H/L [Hispanic or Latino] groups.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by R. Blake Buchalter, PhD, MPH, Center for Populations Health Research, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, was published online in the American Journal of Public Health.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s cross-sectional design limited the ability to infer causality. The use of census tract-level data did not capture individual-level screening behaviors. The study did not account for nativity status or years of migration owing to the lack of data. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention PLACES dataset may not represent the actual screening delivered as it is based on survey data. 

DISCLOSURES:

The National Cancer Institute partially supported this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Advocacy groups for patients with neurologic disorders have become a common feature in the landscape of drug and device development and federal research funding allocation.

On Capitol Hill, advocates have racked up some impressive legislative wins that aim to set a federal agenda for developing new medications.

At the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), advocacy groups played a significant role in several recent high-profile and controversial approvals for drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Such gains suggest these groups are growing in power. But with these wins come questions about whether large advocacy organizations — some of which receive significant industry funding — wield too much influence.

“You need to think very carefully about how you open these processes up to greater patient involvement,” Matthew S. McCoy, PhD, assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. It’s important not to “end up with a situation where it’s the best-connected, the most well-resourced, the most-savvy patient organizations that are able to exercise outsize influence.”

Just because a group has deep pockets does not mean that its priorities align with the disease burden. And not every patient population is represented by a professionalized patient advocacy organization, Dr. McCoy noted. “There is the potential for the rich to get richer.”
 

A Seat at the Table

Long ago, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) began giving patients a seat at the table, in part because of the path blazed by AIDS activists in the late 1980s and early 1990s, said Dr. McCoy.

Patient advocacy is often visible during FDA advisory committee meetings. The agency usually allows an hour, sometimes more, for members of the public to express support or concerns about the product being reviewed. Patients and caregivers — often aided by advocacy organizations — also submit hundreds, sometimes thousands, of letters before a product review.

The Alzheimer’s Association spent years advocating for approval of the anti-amyloid agent aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen/Eisai). In 2020, the organization urged patients and caregivers to submit written and oral testimony to the FDA advisory panel that was reviewing the drug. Despite patients’ pleas, the panel ultimately declined to support the drug’s approval, citing safety concerns and limited evidence of efficacy.

As controversy swirled around the medication — which had the potential for life-threatening brain swelling — advocates continued to apply pressure. Going against the expert panel’s recommendation, in June 2021, the FDA granted accelerated approval prompting three of the panelists to resign in protest.

Aducanumab’s initial price — $56,000 a year — was seen as a major threat to the viability of Medicare. Still, the Alzheimer’s Association stood behind the decision to approve the drug. But by early 2024, Biogen/Eisai said they would stop selling aducanumab, citing other priorities.

Once again patient advocates showed up in March 2022 when the FDA advisers were reviewing Amylyx Pharmaceuticals’ ALS drug Relyvrio (sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol). Trials had showed limited efficacy, but patients testified they would accept greater risk for a chance to be treated with the drug. The committee ultimately voted against approval; 6 months later, the FDA approved Relyvrio anyway.

In April 2024, Amylyx removed Relyvrio from the market following phase 3 trial results that showed no difference between the treatment and placebo.

The drug manufacturer Sarepta Therapeutics, which develops treatments for genetic conditions such as DMD, has a history of working with — and funding — patient advocacy groups. The company encourages nonprofits to apply for grants or sponsorship on its website. At a 2016 advisory committee, when Sarepta was seeking approval of its first DMD therapy eteplirsen (Exondys 51), 52 speakers, most from patient advocacy groups, pleaded for the drug’s approval. When the panel voted no, Sarepta mobilized families to pressure the agency. Exondys was eventually approved.

In June, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, unilaterally gave final expanded approval to Sarepta Therapeutics’ gene therapy Elevidys for DMD. Dr. Marks overrode his own FDA reviewers, who said the product lacked substantial evidence of efficacy. He acknowledged the drug had not met its primary endpoint but said he found secondary and exploratory endpoints “compelling” and cited an unmet medical need.

In an opinion piece in The Washington Post, Aaron Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, the director of the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and a former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, questioned the approval stating that it undermined both public trust and manufacturers’ incentives to do the hard work of proving effectiveness.
 

Patient Voices the ‘Secret Sauce’

Drugmakers aren’t alone in seeing the value of having patients speak directly to government entities. When the Michael J. Fox Foundation wanted to gather cosponsors for the National Plan to End Parkinson’s Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law in July, it recruited and trained patients and caregivers for congressional meetings, said Ted Thompson, senior vice president of public policy at the foundation.

Having those individuals “making the personal case for how this disease affects their families ... was really the secret sauce,” in garnering a large number of cosponsors and getting legislation signed into law within 2 years of its introduction, Mr. Thompson told this news organization.

ALS advocacy groups launched a similar campaign to secure passage of the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act in 2021.

Both pieces of legislation seek to set a federal agenda for developing new therapies in neurodegenerative diseases, in part by directing the FDA and NIH to fund research, engage patients more directly, and form public-private partnerships and councils to spur innovation.

But some said patient advocates are still coming far too late to the party.

“By the time you hear from patient groups at the meetings at the FDA, often the best opportunities for their input are long past,” Leah Zoe Gibson Rand, DPhil, a research scientist with the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, told this news organization. There should be more focus on the patient perspective earlier in drug development and trial design.

“There are some things that the patient voice could uniquely tell the agency,” said Holly Fernandez Lynch, JD, associate professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania. Patients can give insight on what it means to live with a disease, what symptoms are particularly burdensome, and which endpoints matter.

But, she said, “listening to the patient voice cannot mean that FDA just steps aside and lets anything on the market that patients are willing to try.” Individuals “who lack good treatment options have a very good reason to want to try things that haven’t yet been proven.”

If the FDA allows drugs on the market just because patients are willing to try, “5 or 10 years down the road, it’s not at all clear that we would end up with drugs that are better, or drugs that work, or drugs that we know anything more about,” said Dr. Lynch.
 

Does Taking Industry Money Equal Conflicts of Interest?

Many patient advocacy organizations receive funding from drug companies, medical device makers, or other industry sources, but they aren’t always transparent about how much or from which companies, according to studies.

The Alzheimer’s Association continued to push for the approval of aducanumab, even as the group received millions of dollars from the drugmakers. The association was accused of failing to disclose the potential conflict. It still lobbied for approval, even after the FDA advisers in 2020 voted against the drug.

It is not uncommon for individuals who speak in favor of a product’s approval to receive money for transportation and/or lodging from the drug’s manufacturer. In 2018, Dr. McCoy and colleagues reported in JAMA Internal Medicine that, between 2009 and 2017, a quarter of the speakers at the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee had conflicts of interest (COIs), mostly from industry, and that they were not disclosed in approximately 20% of the instances.

In a 2017 study of 104 large patient advocacy organizations published in The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. McCoy and colleagues reported that 83% had received funds from industry. At least 39% had a current or former industry executive on the governing board, and 12% had a current or former industry executive in a board leadership position. Of the 104, 38 were focused on cancer and 13 on neurologic conditions. Of these, only 12% had published policies for managing institutional COIs.

Dr. McCoy emphasized the industry’s reliance on partnering with patient groups, particularly during FDA advisory committee meetings. “The sponsors wouldn’t be paying for patients to show up and give these testimonies if they didn’t think it made a difference. The audience isn’t just panel members; it’s also agency officials and maybe elected officials as well.”

“The Fox Foundation, with a $300 million-plus budget, gets about $5-$6 million a year from industry,” said Mr. Thompson. The money is earmarked for the organization’s Parkinson’s Disease Education Consortium; none goes toward advocacy. And, “the foundation has never specifically endorsed a product or device.”

When organizations that receive industry funding back a particular product, “it does appear to be [a conflict], and whether it is an actual one or not, appearances sometimes are all that matter,” said Mr. Thompson.

Dr. Lynch said accepting industry money “is a really significant conflict.” While advocates might need that money to fund advocacy efforts or make grants to advance research priorities, the acceptance might hinder willingness to demand evidence or to complain about a product’s price tag. “You don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you, right?”

Both Dr. McCoy and Dr. Lynch said patient groups — and individual patients — should at a minimum disclose industry funding, especially when speaking at an advisory committee.

Federal agencies and members of Congress actively seek patient input when considering legislation and funding priorities. But the individuals testifying at an advisory committee aren’t likely to represent all patients, and there’s a danger that they are just the loudest voices, said Dr. McCoy.

“We need to think more carefully about how we actually understand the preferences of a big, diverse patient population,” he said.

Dr. Lynch agreed.

Within the ALS community, “a lot of people who take different perspectives than some of those that are the leading voices get shouted down, and their voices get drowned out, and they get attacked on social media,” she said.

The group may be at the table, “but they’re just one voice at the table,” she said.

Dr. McCoy reported that his wife works for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, a patient advocacy organization. Dr. Rand reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lynch received funding from Arnold Ventures and the Greenwall Foundation for work related to the FDA and patient advocacy.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Advocacy groups for patients with neurologic disorders have become a common feature in the landscape of drug and device development and federal research funding allocation.

On Capitol Hill, advocates have racked up some impressive legislative wins that aim to set a federal agenda for developing new medications.

At the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), advocacy groups played a significant role in several recent high-profile and controversial approvals for drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Such gains suggest these groups are growing in power. But with these wins come questions about whether large advocacy organizations — some of which receive significant industry funding — wield too much influence.

“You need to think very carefully about how you open these processes up to greater patient involvement,” Matthew S. McCoy, PhD, assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. It’s important not to “end up with a situation where it’s the best-connected, the most well-resourced, the most-savvy patient organizations that are able to exercise outsize influence.”

Just because a group has deep pockets does not mean that its priorities align with the disease burden. And not every patient population is represented by a professionalized patient advocacy organization, Dr. McCoy noted. “There is the potential for the rich to get richer.”
 

A Seat at the Table

Long ago, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) began giving patients a seat at the table, in part because of the path blazed by AIDS activists in the late 1980s and early 1990s, said Dr. McCoy.

Patient advocacy is often visible during FDA advisory committee meetings. The agency usually allows an hour, sometimes more, for members of the public to express support or concerns about the product being reviewed. Patients and caregivers — often aided by advocacy organizations — also submit hundreds, sometimes thousands, of letters before a product review.

The Alzheimer’s Association spent years advocating for approval of the anti-amyloid agent aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen/Eisai). In 2020, the organization urged patients and caregivers to submit written and oral testimony to the FDA advisory panel that was reviewing the drug. Despite patients’ pleas, the panel ultimately declined to support the drug’s approval, citing safety concerns and limited evidence of efficacy.

As controversy swirled around the medication — which had the potential for life-threatening brain swelling — advocates continued to apply pressure. Going against the expert panel’s recommendation, in June 2021, the FDA granted accelerated approval prompting three of the panelists to resign in protest.

Aducanumab’s initial price — $56,000 a year — was seen as a major threat to the viability of Medicare. Still, the Alzheimer’s Association stood behind the decision to approve the drug. But by early 2024, Biogen/Eisai said they would stop selling aducanumab, citing other priorities.

Once again patient advocates showed up in March 2022 when the FDA advisers were reviewing Amylyx Pharmaceuticals’ ALS drug Relyvrio (sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol). Trials had showed limited efficacy, but patients testified they would accept greater risk for a chance to be treated with the drug. The committee ultimately voted against approval; 6 months later, the FDA approved Relyvrio anyway.

In April 2024, Amylyx removed Relyvrio from the market following phase 3 trial results that showed no difference between the treatment and placebo.

The drug manufacturer Sarepta Therapeutics, which develops treatments for genetic conditions such as DMD, has a history of working with — and funding — patient advocacy groups. The company encourages nonprofits to apply for grants or sponsorship on its website. At a 2016 advisory committee, when Sarepta was seeking approval of its first DMD therapy eteplirsen (Exondys 51), 52 speakers, most from patient advocacy groups, pleaded for the drug’s approval. When the panel voted no, Sarepta mobilized families to pressure the agency. Exondys was eventually approved.

In June, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, unilaterally gave final expanded approval to Sarepta Therapeutics’ gene therapy Elevidys for DMD. Dr. Marks overrode his own FDA reviewers, who said the product lacked substantial evidence of efficacy. He acknowledged the drug had not met its primary endpoint but said he found secondary and exploratory endpoints “compelling” and cited an unmet medical need.

In an opinion piece in The Washington Post, Aaron Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, the director of the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and a former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, questioned the approval stating that it undermined both public trust and manufacturers’ incentives to do the hard work of proving effectiveness.
 

Patient Voices the ‘Secret Sauce’

Drugmakers aren’t alone in seeing the value of having patients speak directly to government entities. When the Michael J. Fox Foundation wanted to gather cosponsors for the National Plan to End Parkinson’s Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law in July, it recruited and trained patients and caregivers for congressional meetings, said Ted Thompson, senior vice president of public policy at the foundation.

Having those individuals “making the personal case for how this disease affects their families ... was really the secret sauce,” in garnering a large number of cosponsors and getting legislation signed into law within 2 years of its introduction, Mr. Thompson told this news organization.

ALS advocacy groups launched a similar campaign to secure passage of the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act in 2021.

Both pieces of legislation seek to set a federal agenda for developing new therapies in neurodegenerative diseases, in part by directing the FDA and NIH to fund research, engage patients more directly, and form public-private partnerships and councils to spur innovation.

But some said patient advocates are still coming far too late to the party.

“By the time you hear from patient groups at the meetings at the FDA, often the best opportunities for their input are long past,” Leah Zoe Gibson Rand, DPhil, a research scientist with the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, told this news organization. There should be more focus on the patient perspective earlier in drug development and trial design.

“There are some things that the patient voice could uniquely tell the agency,” said Holly Fernandez Lynch, JD, associate professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania. Patients can give insight on what it means to live with a disease, what symptoms are particularly burdensome, and which endpoints matter.

But, she said, “listening to the patient voice cannot mean that FDA just steps aside and lets anything on the market that patients are willing to try.” Individuals “who lack good treatment options have a very good reason to want to try things that haven’t yet been proven.”

If the FDA allows drugs on the market just because patients are willing to try, “5 or 10 years down the road, it’s not at all clear that we would end up with drugs that are better, or drugs that work, or drugs that we know anything more about,” said Dr. Lynch.
 

Does Taking Industry Money Equal Conflicts of Interest?

Many patient advocacy organizations receive funding from drug companies, medical device makers, or other industry sources, but they aren’t always transparent about how much or from which companies, according to studies.

The Alzheimer’s Association continued to push for the approval of aducanumab, even as the group received millions of dollars from the drugmakers. The association was accused of failing to disclose the potential conflict. It still lobbied for approval, even after the FDA advisers in 2020 voted against the drug.

It is not uncommon for individuals who speak in favor of a product’s approval to receive money for transportation and/or lodging from the drug’s manufacturer. In 2018, Dr. McCoy and colleagues reported in JAMA Internal Medicine that, between 2009 and 2017, a quarter of the speakers at the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee had conflicts of interest (COIs), mostly from industry, and that they were not disclosed in approximately 20% of the instances.

In a 2017 study of 104 large patient advocacy organizations published in The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. McCoy and colleagues reported that 83% had received funds from industry. At least 39% had a current or former industry executive on the governing board, and 12% had a current or former industry executive in a board leadership position. Of the 104, 38 were focused on cancer and 13 on neurologic conditions. Of these, only 12% had published policies for managing institutional COIs.

Dr. McCoy emphasized the industry’s reliance on partnering with patient groups, particularly during FDA advisory committee meetings. “The sponsors wouldn’t be paying for patients to show up and give these testimonies if they didn’t think it made a difference. The audience isn’t just panel members; it’s also agency officials and maybe elected officials as well.”

“The Fox Foundation, with a $300 million-plus budget, gets about $5-$6 million a year from industry,” said Mr. Thompson. The money is earmarked for the organization’s Parkinson’s Disease Education Consortium; none goes toward advocacy. And, “the foundation has never specifically endorsed a product or device.”

When organizations that receive industry funding back a particular product, “it does appear to be [a conflict], and whether it is an actual one or not, appearances sometimes are all that matter,” said Mr. Thompson.

Dr. Lynch said accepting industry money “is a really significant conflict.” While advocates might need that money to fund advocacy efforts or make grants to advance research priorities, the acceptance might hinder willingness to demand evidence or to complain about a product’s price tag. “You don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you, right?”

Both Dr. McCoy and Dr. Lynch said patient groups — and individual patients — should at a minimum disclose industry funding, especially when speaking at an advisory committee.

Federal agencies and members of Congress actively seek patient input when considering legislation and funding priorities. But the individuals testifying at an advisory committee aren’t likely to represent all patients, and there’s a danger that they are just the loudest voices, said Dr. McCoy.

“We need to think more carefully about how we actually understand the preferences of a big, diverse patient population,” he said.

Dr. Lynch agreed.

Within the ALS community, “a lot of people who take different perspectives than some of those that are the leading voices get shouted down, and their voices get drowned out, and they get attacked on social media,” she said.

The group may be at the table, “but they’re just one voice at the table,” she said.

Dr. McCoy reported that his wife works for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, a patient advocacy organization. Dr. Rand reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lynch received funding from Arnold Ventures and the Greenwall Foundation for work related to the FDA and patient advocacy.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Advocacy groups for patients with neurologic disorders have become a common feature in the landscape of drug and device development and federal research funding allocation.

On Capitol Hill, advocates have racked up some impressive legislative wins that aim to set a federal agenda for developing new medications.

At the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), advocacy groups played a significant role in several recent high-profile and controversial approvals for drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Such gains suggest these groups are growing in power. But with these wins come questions about whether large advocacy organizations — some of which receive significant industry funding — wield too much influence.

“You need to think very carefully about how you open these processes up to greater patient involvement,” Matthew S. McCoy, PhD, assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. It’s important not to “end up with a situation where it’s the best-connected, the most well-resourced, the most-savvy patient organizations that are able to exercise outsize influence.”

Just because a group has deep pockets does not mean that its priorities align with the disease burden. And not every patient population is represented by a professionalized patient advocacy organization, Dr. McCoy noted. “There is the potential for the rich to get richer.”
 

A Seat at the Table

Long ago, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) began giving patients a seat at the table, in part because of the path blazed by AIDS activists in the late 1980s and early 1990s, said Dr. McCoy.

Patient advocacy is often visible during FDA advisory committee meetings. The agency usually allows an hour, sometimes more, for members of the public to express support or concerns about the product being reviewed. Patients and caregivers — often aided by advocacy organizations — also submit hundreds, sometimes thousands, of letters before a product review.

The Alzheimer’s Association spent years advocating for approval of the anti-amyloid agent aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen/Eisai). In 2020, the organization urged patients and caregivers to submit written and oral testimony to the FDA advisory panel that was reviewing the drug. Despite patients’ pleas, the panel ultimately declined to support the drug’s approval, citing safety concerns and limited evidence of efficacy.

As controversy swirled around the medication — which had the potential for life-threatening brain swelling — advocates continued to apply pressure. Going against the expert panel’s recommendation, in June 2021, the FDA granted accelerated approval prompting three of the panelists to resign in protest.

Aducanumab’s initial price — $56,000 a year — was seen as a major threat to the viability of Medicare. Still, the Alzheimer’s Association stood behind the decision to approve the drug. But by early 2024, Biogen/Eisai said they would stop selling aducanumab, citing other priorities.

Once again patient advocates showed up in March 2022 when the FDA advisers were reviewing Amylyx Pharmaceuticals’ ALS drug Relyvrio (sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol). Trials had showed limited efficacy, but patients testified they would accept greater risk for a chance to be treated with the drug. The committee ultimately voted against approval; 6 months later, the FDA approved Relyvrio anyway.

In April 2024, Amylyx removed Relyvrio from the market following phase 3 trial results that showed no difference between the treatment and placebo.

The drug manufacturer Sarepta Therapeutics, which develops treatments for genetic conditions such as DMD, has a history of working with — and funding — patient advocacy groups. The company encourages nonprofits to apply for grants or sponsorship on its website. At a 2016 advisory committee, when Sarepta was seeking approval of its first DMD therapy eteplirsen (Exondys 51), 52 speakers, most from patient advocacy groups, pleaded for the drug’s approval. When the panel voted no, Sarepta mobilized families to pressure the agency. Exondys was eventually approved.

In June, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, unilaterally gave final expanded approval to Sarepta Therapeutics’ gene therapy Elevidys for DMD. Dr. Marks overrode his own FDA reviewers, who said the product lacked substantial evidence of efficacy. He acknowledged the drug had not met its primary endpoint but said he found secondary and exploratory endpoints “compelling” and cited an unmet medical need.

In an opinion piece in The Washington Post, Aaron Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, the director of the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and a former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, questioned the approval stating that it undermined both public trust and manufacturers’ incentives to do the hard work of proving effectiveness.
 

Patient Voices the ‘Secret Sauce’

Drugmakers aren’t alone in seeing the value of having patients speak directly to government entities. When the Michael J. Fox Foundation wanted to gather cosponsors for the National Plan to End Parkinson’s Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law in July, it recruited and trained patients and caregivers for congressional meetings, said Ted Thompson, senior vice president of public policy at the foundation.

Having those individuals “making the personal case for how this disease affects their families ... was really the secret sauce,” in garnering a large number of cosponsors and getting legislation signed into law within 2 years of its introduction, Mr. Thompson told this news organization.

ALS advocacy groups launched a similar campaign to secure passage of the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act in 2021.

Both pieces of legislation seek to set a federal agenda for developing new therapies in neurodegenerative diseases, in part by directing the FDA and NIH to fund research, engage patients more directly, and form public-private partnerships and councils to spur innovation.

But some said patient advocates are still coming far too late to the party.

“By the time you hear from patient groups at the meetings at the FDA, often the best opportunities for their input are long past,” Leah Zoe Gibson Rand, DPhil, a research scientist with the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, told this news organization. There should be more focus on the patient perspective earlier in drug development and trial design.

“There are some things that the patient voice could uniquely tell the agency,” said Holly Fernandez Lynch, JD, associate professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania. Patients can give insight on what it means to live with a disease, what symptoms are particularly burdensome, and which endpoints matter.

But, she said, “listening to the patient voice cannot mean that FDA just steps aside and lets anything on the market that patients are willing to try.” Individuals “who lack good treatment options have a very good reason to want to try things that haven’t yet been proven.”

If the FDA allows drugs on the market just because patients are willing to try, “5 or 10 years down the road, it’s not at all clear that we would end up with drugs that are better, or drugs that work, or drugs that we know anything more about,” said Dr. Lynch.
 

Does Taking Industry Money Equal Conflicts of Interest?

Many patient advocacy organizations receive funding from drug companies, medical device makers, or other industry sources, but they aren’t always transparent about how much or from which companies, according to studies.

The Alzheimer’s Association continued to push for the approval of aducanumab, even as the group received millions of dollars from the drugmakers. The association was accused of failing to disclose the potential conflict. It still lobbied for approval, even after the FDA advisers in 2020 voted against the drug.

It is not uncommon for individuals who speak in favor of a product’s approval to receive money for transportation and/or lodging from the drug’s manufacturer. In 2018, Dr. McCoy and colleagues reported in JAMA Internal Medicine that, between 2009 and 2017, a quarter of the speakers at the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee had conflicts of interest (COIs), mostly from industry, and that they were not disclosed in approximately 20% of the instances.

In a 2017 study of 104 large patient advocacy organizations published in The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. McCoy and colleagues reported that 83% had received funds from industry. At least 39% had a current or former industry executive on the governing board, and 12% had a current or former industry executive in a board leadership position. Of the 104, 38 were focused on cancer and 13 on neurologic conditions. Of these, only 12% had published policies for managing institutional COIs.

Dr. McCoy emphasized the industry’s reliance on partnering with patient groups, particularly during FDA advisory committee meetings. “The sponsors wouldn’t be paying for patients to show up and give these testimonies if they didn’t think it made a difference. The audience isn’t just panel members; it’s also agency officials and maybe elected officials as well.”

“The Fox Foundation, with a $300 million-plus budget, gets about $5-$6 million a year from industry,” said Mr. Thompson. The money is earmarked for the organization’s Parkinson’s Disease Education Consortium; none goes toward advocacy. And, “the foundation has never specifically endorsed a product or device.”

When organizations that receive industry funding back a particular product, “it does appear to be [a conflict], and whether it is an actual one or not, appearances sometimes are all that matter,” said Mr. Thompson.

Dr. Lynch said accepting industry money “is a really significant conflict.” While advocates might need that money to fund advocacy efforts or make grants to advance research priorities, the acceptance might hinder willingness to demand evidence or to complain about a product’s price tag. “You don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you, right?”

Both Dr. McCoy and Dr. Lynch said patient groups — and individual patients — should at a minimum disclose industry funding, especially when speaking at an advisory committee.

Federal agencies and members of Congress actively seek patient input when considering legislation and funding priorities. But the individuals testifying at an advisory committee aren’t likely to represent all patients, and there’s a danger that they are just the loudest voices, said Dr. McCoy.

“We need to think more carefully about how we actually understand the preferences of a big, diverse patient population,” he said.

Dr. Lynch agreed.

Within the ALS community, “a lot of people who take different perspectives than some of those that are the leading voices get shouted down, and their voices get drowned out, and they get attacked on social media,” she said.

The group may be at the table, “but they’re just one voice at the table,” she said.

Dr. McCoy reported that his wife works for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, a patient advocacy organization. Dr. Rand reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lynch received funding from Arnold Ventures and the Greenwall Foundation for work related to the FDA and patient advocacy.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I have written in my first two columns of 2024 about how the obstacles for women to access perinatal mental healthcare are not well understood. This is despite an almost uniform adoption of screening practices for postpartum depression (PPD) over the last 10-15 years in the United States, the approval and off-label use of effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for PPD, and the growing numbers of perinatal access programs across the country in various states and hospitals.

I want to revisit this topic because I believe it is extremely important that we get to a better understanding of the obstacles postpartum patients experience so we can flatten the curve with respect to the perinatal treatment cascade. It turns out that screening is easy but accessing care for those with a positive screen with significant depressive symptoms is an entirely distinct outcome.

Recently, a group of investigators examined the barriers to identifying and treating women for PPD. In a meta-analysis that included 32 reviews, the researchers analyzed the barriers women face when they seek help, access care, and engage in treatment for mental health issues while pregnant or in the postpartum period. The researchers found women have a wide variety of barriers to seeking and accessing care related to societal, political, organizational, interpersonal, healthcare professional, and individual factors at every level of the care pathway. In total, the researchers categorized barriers into six overarching themes and 62 sub-themes, and I want to highlight a few of the biggest contributors below.

In the meta-analysis, a major contributor to deciding to consult with a healthcare professional was a lack of understanding of what constituted a perinatal mental illness. This lack of understanding led women to ignore or minimize their symptoms. Others said that the cost of travel or arranging childcare were factors that prevented them from making an appointment with a provider. Some women reported that their healthcare professionals’ normalization of their symptoms was a barrier in the early stages of the care pathway, and others were unclear about the role a healthcare professional played in involving social services and removing their child from their care, or feared being judged as a bad mom.

One of the major societal factors identified in the study is the stigma associated with PPD. It is unfortunate that for so many postpartum patients, an extraordinary stigma associated with PPD still persists despite efforts from a large number of stakeholders, including the scientific community, advocacy groups, and celebrities who have publicly come out and described their experiences with PPD. For so many postpartum patients, there is an inability to let go of the stigma, shame, humiliation, and isolation associated with the suffering that goes along with PPD.

Another factor identified in the study as being an obstacle to care was a lack of a network to help postpartum patients navigate the shifting roles associated with new parenthood, which is magnified if a patient has developed major depressive disorder. This is why a strong social support network is critical to help women navigate the novelty of being a new mom. We were aware of this as a field nearly 30 years ago when Michael W. O’Hara, PhD, published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry noting that social support was an important predictor for risk of PPD.

When we talk with patients in clinic, and even when we interviewed subjects for our upcoming documentary More Than Blue, which will be completed in the fall of 2024, women in the postpartum period have cited the navigation of our current healthcare system as one of the greatest obstacles to getting care. Suffering from PPD and being handed a book of potential providers, absent someone helping to navigate that referral system, is really asking a new mom to climb a very tall mountain. Additionally, moms living in rural areas likely don’t have the sort of access to perinatal mental health services that women in more urban areas do.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is not the lack of availability of effective treatments that is the problem. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the last 15 years has given us a much greater understanding of the effectiveness of antidepressants as well as nonpharmacologic psychotherapies for women who may not want to be on a medicine. We now have very effective psychotherapies and there’s excitement about other new treatments that may have a role in the treatment of postpartum depression, including the use of neurosteroids, ketamine or esketamine, and psychedelics or neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is also no dearth of both well-studied treatments and even new and effective treatments that, as we move toward precision reproductive psychiatry, may be useful in tailoring treatment for patients.

If we’re looking to understand the anatomy of the perinatal treatment cascade, finally systematically evaluating these barriers may lead us down a path to understand how to build the bridge to postpartum wellness for women who are suffering. While what’s on the horizon is very exciting, we still have yet to address these barriers that prevent women from accessing this expanding array of treatment options. That is, in fact, the challenge to patients, their families, advocacy groups, political organizations, and society in general. The bridging of that gap is a burden that we all share as we try to mitigate the suffering associated with such an exquisitely treatable illness while access to treatment still feels beyond reach of so many postpartum persons around us.

As we continue our research on new treatments, we should keep in mind that they will be of no value unless we understand how to facilitate access to these treatments for the greatest number of patients. This endeavor really highlights the importance of health services research and implementation science, and that we need to be partnering early and often with colleagues if we are to truly achieve this goal.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com

I have written in my first two columns of 2024 about how the obstacles for women to access perinatal mental healthcare are not well understood. This is despite an almost uniform adoption of screening practices for postpartum depression (PPD) over the last 10-15 years in the United States, the approval and off-label use of effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for PPD, and the growing numbers of perinatal access programs across the country in various states and hospitals.

I want to revisit this topic because I believe it is extremely important that we get to a better understanding of the obstacles postpartum patients experience so we can flatten the curve with respect to the perinatal treatment cascade. It turns out that screening is easy but accessing care for those with a positive screen with significant depressive symptoms is an entirely distinct outcome.

Recently, a group of investigators examined the barriers to identifying and treating women for PPD. In a meta-analysis that included 32 reviews, the researchers analyzed the barriers women face when they seek help, access care, and engage in treatment for mental health issues while pregnant or in the postpartum period. The researchers found women have a wide variety of barriers to seeking and accessing care related to societal, political, organizational, interpersonal, healthcare professional, and individual factors at every level of the care pathway. In total, the researchers categorized barriers into six overarching themes and 62 sub-themes, and I want to highlight a few of the biggest contributors below.

In the meta-analysis, a major contributor to deciding to consult with a healthcare professional was a lack of understanding of what constituted a perinatal mental illness. This lack of understanding led women to ignore or minimize their symptoms. Others said that the cost of travel or arranging childcare were factors that prevented them from making an appointment with a provider. Some women reported that their healthcare professionals’ normalization of their symptoms was a barrier in the early stages of the care pathway, and others were unclear about the role a healthcare professional played in involving social services and removing their child from their care, or feared being judged as a bad mom.

One of the major societal factors identified in the study is the stigma associated with PPD. It is unfortunate that for so many postpartum patients, an extraordinary stigma associated with PPD still persists despite efforts from a large number of stakeholders, including the scientific community, advocacy groups, and celebrities who have publicly come out and described their experiences with PPD. For so many postpartum patients, there is an inability to let go of the stigma, shame, humiliation, and isolation associated with the suffering that goes along with PPD.

Another factor identified in the study as being an obstacle to care was a lack of a network to help postpartum patients navigate the shifting roles associated with new parenthood, which is magnified if a patient has developed major depressive disorder. This is why a strong social support network is critical to help women navigate the novelty of being a new mom. We were aware of this as a field nearly 30 years ago when Michael W. O’Hara, PhD, published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry noting that social support was an important predictor for risk of PPD.

When we talk with patients in clinic, and even when we interviewed subjects for our upcoming documentary More Than Blue, which will be completed in the fall of 2024, women in the postpartum period have cited the navigation of our current healthcare system as one of the greatest obstacles to getting care. Suffering from PPD and being handed a book of potential providers, absent someone helping to navigate that referral system, is really asking a new mom to climb a very tall mountain. Additionally, moms living in rural areas likely don’t have the sort of access to perinatal mental health services that women in more urban areas do.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is not the lack of availability of effective treatments that is the problem. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the last 15 years has given us a much greater understanding of the effectiveness of antidepressants as well as nonpharmacologic psychotherapies for women who may not want to be on a medicine. We now have very effective psychotherapies and there’s excitement about other new treatments that may have a role in the treatment of postpartum depression, including the use of neurosteroids, ketamine or esketamine, and psychedelics or neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is also no dearth of both well-studied treatments and even new and effective treatments that, as we move toward precision reproductive psychiatry, may be useful in tailoring treatment for patients.

If we’re looking to understand the anatomy of the perinatal treatment cascade, finally systematically evaluating these barriers may lead us down a path to understand how to build the bridge to postpartum wellness for women who are suffering. While what’s on the horizon is very exciting, we still have yet to address these barriers that prevent women from accessing this expanding array of treatment options. That is, in fact, the challenge to patients, their families, advocacy groups, political organizations, and society in general. The bridging of that gap is a burden that we all share as we try to mitigate the suffering associated with such an exquisitely treatable illness while access to treatment still feels beyond reach of so many postpartum persons around us.

As we continue our research on new treatments, we should keep in mind that they will be of no value unless we understand how to facilitate access to these treatments for the greatest number of patients. This endeavor really highlights the importance of health services research and implementation science, and that we need to be partnering early and often with colleagues if we are to truly achieve this goal.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com

I have written in my first two columns of 2024 about how the obstacles for women to access perinatal mental healthcare are not well understood. This is despite an almost uniform adoption of screening practices for postpartum depression (PPD) over the last 10-15 years in the United States, the approval and off-label use of effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for PPD, and the growing numbers of perinatal access programs across the country in various states and hospitals.

I want to revisit this topic because I believe it is extremely important that we get to a better understanding of the obstacles postpartum patients experience so we can flatten the curve with respect to the perinatal treatment cascade. It turns out that screening is easy but accessing care for those with a positive screen with significant depressive symptoms is an entirely distinct outcome.

Recently, a group of investigators examined the barriers to identifying and treating women for PPD. In a meta-analysis that included 32 reviews, the researchers analyzed the barriers women face when they seek help, access care, and engage in treatment for mental health issues while pregnant or in the postpartum period. The researchers found women have a wide variety of barriers to seeking and accessing care related to societal, political, organizational, interpersonal, healthcare professional, and individual factors at every level of the care pathway. In total, the researchers categorized barriers into six overarching themes and 62 sub-themes, and I want to highlight a few of the biggest contributors below.

In the meta-analysis, a major contributor to deciding to consult with a healthcare professional was a lack of understanding of what constituted a perinatal mental illness. This lack of understanding led women to ignore or minimize their symptoms. Others said that the cost of travel or arranging childcare were factors that prevented them from making an appointment with a provider. Some women reported that their healthcare professionals’ normalization of their symptoms was a barrier in the early stages of the care pathway, and others were unclear about the role a healthcare professional played in involving social services and removing their child from their care, or feared being judged as a bad mom.

One of the major societal factors identified in the study is the stigma associated with PPD. It is unfortunate that for so many postpartum patients, an extraordinary stigma associated with PPD still persists despite efforts from a large number of stakeholders, including the scientific community, advocacy groups, and celebrities who have publicly come out and described their experiences with PPD. For so many postpartum patients, there is an inability to let go of the stigma, shame, humiliation, and isolation associated with the suffering that goes along with PPD.

Another factor identified in the study as being an obstacle to care was a lack of a network to help postpartum patients navigate the shifting roles associated with new parenthood, which is magnified if a patient has developed major depressive disorder. This is why a strong social support network is critical to help women navigate the novelty of being a new mom. We were aware of this as a field nearly 30 years ago when Michael W. O’Hara, PhD, published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry noting that social support was an important predictor for risk of PPD.

When we talk with patients in clinic, and even when we interviewed subjects for our upcoming documentary More Than Blue, which will be completed in the fall of 2024, women in the postpartum period have cited the navigation of our current healthcare system as one of the greatest obstacles to getting care. Suffering from PPD and being handed a book of potential providers, absent someone helping to navigate that referral system, is really asking a new mom to climb a very tall mountain. Additionally, moms living in rural areas likely don’t have the sort of access to perinatal mental health services that women in more urban areas do.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is not the lack of availability of effective treatments that is the problem. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the last 15 years has given us a much greater understanding of the effectiveness of antidepressants as well as nonpharmacologic psychotherapies for women who may not want to be on a medicine. We now have very effective psychotherapies and there’s excitement about other new treatments that may have a role in the treatment of postpartum depression, including the use of neurosteroids, ketamine or esketamine, and psychedelics or neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is also no dearth of both well-studied treatments and even new and effective treatments that, as we move toward precision reproductive psychiatry, may be useful in tailoring treatment for patients.

If we’re looking to understand the anatomy of the perinatal treatment cascade, finally systematically evaluating these barriers may lead us down a path to understand how to build the bridge to postpartum wellness for women who are suffering. While what’s on the horizon is very exciting, we still have yet to address these barriers that prevent women from accessing this expanding array of treatment options. That is, in fact, the challenge to patients, their families, advocacy groups, political organizations, and society in general. The bridging of that gap is a burden that we all share as we try to mitigate the suffering associated with such an exquisitely treatable illness while access to treatment still feels beyond reach of so many postpartum persons around us.

As we continue our research on new treatments, we should keep in mind that they will be of no value unless we understand how to facilitate access to these treatments for the greatest number of patients. This endeavor really highlights the importance of health services research and implementation science, and that we need to be partnering early and often with colleagues if we are to truly achieve this goal.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com

Four organizations owned by private equity firms — including two provider groups — dominated the No Surprises Act’s disputed bill arbitration process in its first year, filing about 70% of 657,040 cases against insurers in 2023, a new report finds. 

The findings, recently published in Health Affairs, suggest that private equity–owned organizations are forcefully challenging insurers about payments for certain kinds of out-of-network care. 

Their fighting stance has paid off: The percentage of resolved arbitration cases won by providers jumped from 72% in the first quarter of 2023 to 85% in the last quarter, and they were awarded a median of more than 300% the contracted in-network rates for the services in question.

With many more out-of-network bills disputed by providers than expected, “the system is not working exactly the way it was anticipated when this law was written,” lead author Jack Hoadley, PhD, a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, Washington, DC, told this news organization.

And, he said, the public and the federal government may end up paying a price. 

Congress passed the No Surprises Act in 2020 and then-President Donald Trump signed it. The landmark bill, which went into effect in 2022, was designed to protect patients from unexpected and often exorbitant “surprise” bills after they received some kinds of out-of-network care. 

Now, many types of providers are forbidden from billing patients beyond normal in-network costs. In these cases, health plans and out-of-network providers — who don’t have mutual agreements — must wrangle over payment amounts, which are intended to not exceed inflation-adjusted 2019 median levels. 

A binding arbitration process kicks in when a provider and a health plan fail to agree about how much the plan will pay for a service. Then, a third-party arbitrator is called in to make a ruling that’s binding. The process is controversial, and a flurry of lawsuits from providers have challenged it. 

The new report, which updates an earlier analysis, examines data about disputed cases from all of 2023.

Of the 657,040 new cases filed in 2023, about 70% came from four private equity-funded organizations: Team Health, SCP Health, Radiology Partners, and Envision, which each provide physician services.

About half of the 2023 cases were from just four states: Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia. The report says the four organizations are especially active in those states. In contrast, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state each had just 1500 or fewer cases filed last year. 

Health plans challenged a third of cases as ineligible, and 22% of all resolved cases were deemed ineligible.

Providers won 80% of resolved challenges in 2023, although it’s not clear how much money they reaped. Still, it’s clear that “in the vast majority of the cases, insurers have to pay larger amounts to the provider,” Dr. Hoadley said.

Radiologists made a median of at least 500% of the in-network rate in their cases. Surgeons and neurologists made even more money — a median of at least 800% of the in-network rate. Overall, providers made 322%-350% of in-network rates, depending on the quarter.

Dr. Hoadley cautioned that only a small percentage of medical payments are disputed. In those cases, “the amount that the insurer offers is accepted, and that’s the end of the story.”

Why are the providers often reaping much more than typical payments for in-network services? It’s “really hard to know,” Dr. Hoadley said. But one factor, he said, may be the fact that providers are able to offer evidence challenging that amounts that insurers say they paid previously: “Hey, when we were in network, we were paid this much.”

It’s not clear whether the dispute-and-arbitration system will cost insurers — and patients — more in the long run. The Congressional Budget Office actually thought the No Surprises Act might lower the growth of premiums slightly and save the federal government money, Dr. Hoadley said, but that could potentially not happen. The flood of litigation also contributes to uncertainty, he said. 

Alan Sager, PhD, professor of Health Law, Policy, and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, told this news organization that premiums are bound to rise as insurers react to higher costs. He also expects that providers will question the value of being in-network. “If you’re out-of-network and can obtain much higher payments, why would any doctor or hospital remain in-network, especially since they don’t lose out on patient volume?”

Why are provider groups owned by private equity firms so aggressive at challenging health plans? Loren Adler, a fellow and associate director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Health Policy, told this news organization that these companies play large roles in fields affected by the No Surprises Act. These include emergency medicine, radiology, and anesthesiology, said Mr. Adler, who’s also studied the No Surprises Act’s dispute/arbitration system.

Mr. Adler added that larger companies “are better suited to deal with technical complexities of this process and spend the sort of upfront money to go through it.”

In the big picture, Mr. Adler said, the new study “raises question of whether Congress at some point wants to try to basically bring prices from the arbitration process back in line with average in-network prices.”

The study was funded by the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Hoadley, Dr. Sager, and Mr. Adler had no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Four organizations owned by private equity firms — including two provider groups — dominated the No Surprises Act’s disputed bill arbitration process in its first year, filing about 70% of 657,040 cases against insurers in 2023, a new report finds. 

The findings, recently published in Health Affairs, suggest that private equity–owned organizations are forcefully challenging insurers about payments for certain kinds of out-of-network care. 

Their fighting stance has paid off: The percentage of resolved arbitration cases won by providers jumped from 72% in the first quarter of 2023 to 85% in the last quarter, and they were awarded a median of more than 300% the contracted in-network rates for the services in question.

With many more out-of-network bills disputed by providers than expected, “the system is not working exactly the way it was anticipated when this law was written,” lead author Jack Hoadley, PhD, a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, Washington, DC, told this news organization.

And, he said, the public and the federal government may end up paying a price. 

Congress passed the No Surprises Act in 2020 and then-President Donald Trump signed it. The landmark bill, which went into effect in 2022, was designed to protect patients from unexpected and often exorbitant “surprise” bills after they received some kinds of out-of-network care. 

Now, many types of providers are forbidden from billing patients beyond normal in-network costs. In these cases, health plans and out-of-network providers — who don’t have mutual agreements — must wrangle over payment amounts, which are intended to not exceed inflation-adjusted 2019 median levels. 

A binding arbitration process kicks in when a provider and a health plan fail to agree about how much the plan will pay for a service. Then, a third-party arbitrator is called in to make a ruling that’s binding. The process is controversial, and a flurry of lawsuits from providers have challenged it. 

The new report, which updates an earlier analysis, examines data about disputed cases from all of 2023.

Of the 657,040 new cases filed in 2023, about 70% came from four private equity-funded organizations: Team Health, SCP Health, Radiology Partners, and Envision, which each provide physician services.

About half of the 2023 cases were from just four states: Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia. The report says the four organizations are especially active in those states. In contrast, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state each had just 1500 or fewer cases filed last year. 

Health plans challenged a third of cases as ineligible, and 22% of all resolved cases were deemed ineligible.

Providers won 80% of resolved challenges in 2023, although it’s not clear how much money they reaped. Still, it’s clear that “in the vast majority of the cases, insurers have to pay larger amounts to the provider,” Dr. Hoadley said.

Radiologists made a median of at least 500% of the in-network rate in their cases. Surgeons and neurologists made even more money — a median of at least 800% of the in-network rate. Overall, providers made 322%-350% of in-network rates, depending on the quarter.

Dr. Hoadley cautioned that only a small percentage of medical payments are disputed. In those cases, “the amount that the insurer offers is accepted, and that’s the end of the story.”

Why are the providers often reaping much more than typical payments for in-network services? It’s “really hard to know,” Dr. Hoadley said. But one factor, he said, may be the fact that providers are able to offer evidence challenging that amounts that insurers say they paid previously: “Hey, when we were in network, we were paid this much.”

It’s not clear whether the dispute-and-arbitration system will cost insurers — and patients — more in the long run. The Congressional Budget Office actually thought the No Surprises Act might lower the growth of premiums slightly and save the federal government money, Dr. Hoadley said, but that could potentially not happen. The flood of litigation also contributes to uncertainty, he said. 

Alan Sager, PhD, professor of Health Law, Policy, and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, told this news organization that premiums are bound to rise as insurers react to higher costs. He also expects that providers will question the value of being in-network. “If you’re out-of-network and can obtain much higher payments, why would any doctor or hospital remain in-network, especially since they don’t lose out on patient volume?”

Why are provider groups owned by private equity firms so aggressive at challenging health plans? Loren Adler, a fellow and associate director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Health Policy, told this news organization that these companies play large roles in fields affected by the No Surprises Act. These include emergency medicine, radiology, and anesthesiology, said Mr. Adler, who’s also studied the No Surprises Act’s dispute/arbitration system.

Mr. Adler added that larger companies “are better suited to deal with technical complexities of this process and spend the sort of upfront money to go through it.”

In the big picture, Mr. Adler said, the new study “raises question of whether Congress at some point wants to try to basically bring prices from the arbitration process back in line with average in-network prices.”

The study was funded by the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Hoadley, Dr. Sager, and Mr. Adler had no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Four organizations owned by private equity firms — including two provider groups — dominated the No Surprises Act’s disputed bill arbitration process in its first year, filing about 70% of 657,040 cases against insurers in 2023, a new report finds. 

The findings, recently published in Health Affairs, suggest that private equity–owned organizations are forcefully challenging insurers about payments for certain kinds of out-of-network care. 

Their fighting stance has paid off: The percentage of resolved arbitration cases won by providers jumped from 72% in the first quarter of 2023 to 85% in the last quarter, and they were awarded a median of more than 300% the contracted in-network rates for the services in question.

With many more out-of-network bills disputed by providers than expected, “the system is not working exactly the way it was anticipated when this law was written,” lead author Jack Hoadley, PhD, a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, Washington, DC, told this news organization.

And, he said, the public and the federal government may end up paying a price. 

Congress passed the No Surprises Act in 2020 and then-President Donald Trump signed it. The landmark bill, which went into effect in 2022, was designed to protect patients from unexpected and often exorbitant “surprise” bills after they received some kinds of out-of-network care. 

Now, many types of providers are forbidden from billing patients beyond normal in-network costs. In these cases, health plans and out-of-network providers — who don’t have mutual agreements — must wrangle over payment amounts, which are intended to not exceed inflation-adjusted 2019 median levels. 

A binding arbitration process kicks in when a provider and a health plan fail to agree about how much the plan will pay for a service. Then, a third-party arbitrator is called in to make a ruling that’s binding. The process is controversial, and a flurry of lawsuits from providers have challenged it. 

The new report, which updates an earlier analysis, examines data about disputed cases from all of 2023.

Of the 657,040 new cases filed in 2023, about 70% came from four private equity-funded organizations: Team Health, SCP Health, Radiology Partners, and Envision, which each provide physician services.

About half of the 2023 cases were from just four states: Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia. The report says the four organizations are especially active in those states. In contrast, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state each had just 1500 or fewer cases filed last year. 

Health plans challenged a third of cases as ineligible, and 22% of all resolved cases were deemed ineligible.

Providers won 80% of resolved challenges in 2023, although it’s not clear how much money they reaped. Still, it’s clear that “in the vast majority of the cases, insurers have to pay larger amounts to the provider,” Dr. Hoadley said.

Radiologists made a median of at least 500% of the in-network rate in their cases. Surgeons and neurologists made even more money — a median of at least 800% of the in-network rate. Overall, providers made 322%-350% of in-network rates, depending on the quarter.

Dr. Hoadley cautioned that only a small percentage of medical payments are disputed. In those cases, “the amount that the insurer offers is accepted, and that’s the end of the story.”

Why are the providers often reaping much more than typical payments for in-network services? It’s “really hard to know,” Dr. Hoadley said. But one factor, he said, may be the fact that providers are able to offer evidence challenging that amounts that insurers say they paid previously: “Hey, when we were in network, we were paid this much.”

It’s not clear whether the dispute-and-arbitration system will cost insurers — and patients — more in the long run. The Congressional Budget Office actually thought the No Surprises Act might lower the growth of premiums slightly and save the federal government money, Dr. Hoadley said, but that could potentially not happen. The flood of litigation also contributes to uncertainty, he said. 

Alan Sager, PhD, professor of Health Law, Policy, and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, told this news organization that premiums are bound to rise as insurers react to higher costs. He also expects that providers will question the value of being in-network. “If you’re out-of-network and can obtain much higher payments, why would any doctor or hospital remain in-network, especially since they don’t lose out on patient volume?”

Why are provider groups owned by private equity firms so aggressive at challenging health plans? Loren Adler, a fellow and associate director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Health Policy, told this news organization that these companies play large roles in fields affected by the No Surprises Act. These include emergency medicine, radiology, and anesthesiology, said Mr. Adler, who’s also studied the No Surprises Act’s dispute/arbitration system.

Mr. Adler added that larger companies “are better suited to deal with technical complexities of this process and spend the sort of upfront money to go through it.”

In the big picture, Mr. Adler said, the new study “raises question of whether Congress at some point wants to try to basically bring prices from the arbitration process back in line with average in-network prices.”

The study was funded by the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Hoadley, Dr. Sager, and Mr. Adler had no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Why, I guess you can,” Ma said doubtfully. She did not like to see women working in the fields. Ma and her girls were … above doing men’s work. — Laura Ingalls Wilder

Sometimes a dad has to feed his little ones. I take pride in making my mac and cheese from scratch. Unlike those modern out-of-the-box dads, I grate fresh Parmesan and cheddar myself. Authentic, but I’m no match for the “Trad Wives.” For some, like Hannah Neelman known as @BallarinaFarms, mac and cheese takes days to prepare. She first has to milk the cows, boil the milk for cheese, gather eggs, and make pasta from home-milled flour. Instagram and TikTok are buzzing with tradwives like her. Tradwives, short for traditional wives, post and promote conventional values in gorgeous cottagecore images. Sometimes in prairie dresses, often cooking with Le Creuset pans on AGA ranges, they are proud to serve their husband and brood who wait patiently sitting at their (19th-century farmhouse) tables.

Somehow, this romanticizing of women in old-fashioned homemaking roles, cooking, cleaning, and caring for children is trending in 2024. There is a spectrum of viewpoints but most labeled as tradwives glorify women who choose to feed families rather than build careers. Offstage are their husbands who implicitly benefit from their wives’ choices and capabilities.

It’s no coincidence that this hot tradwife trend is both controversial and popular — nothing feeds the algorithm like drama and dispute. At the extreme of tradwife content are orthodox religious or alt-right posts advising women to be servants to their husbands and to put family as their only priority. Watch enough of this content and you’ll likely find the algorithm dripping controversial anti-vax and conspiracy content in your feed. The irresistible combination of bucolic images and rage bait has led to tradwife content being viewed hundreds of millions of times. Audience reactions of love or hate are visceral. But pitting career women against tradwives is a trap. Despite provocative “feminist women hate god and family” or “tradwives promote slavery” posts, most purveyors of this content seem to enjoy their roles and, if anything, are only looking for likes and paid promotions.

Women in medicine whom I spoke with didn’t seem bothered, or surprised, by the tradwife trend. Who doesn’t love idyllic scenes of family and homesteads? The trouble is the expectation that women be both. Competent doctor by day and wild blueberry scones by day as well. FIGS and frilly dresses. Rhomboid flaps and darned socks (though the stitch might be the same). This is why the tradwife trend showcases the most difficult, exacting, and time consuming of household chores — it’s physiologically impossible to see patients 50 hours a week and churn your own butter. The movement is trying to say it’s impossible to do both, so just choose one. As a former Juilliard-trained ballerina, Ms. Neelman was certainly accustomed to performing at the highest level. A generous interpretation of her work is that she cannot be it all and so choosing to be a homemaker is freeing even if perhaps not her life’s ambition. Whether her life is enjoyable or forced drudgery is only hers to know. It seems the contented homemaker might offer a different kind of empowerment — one that centers around domesticity and nurturing. A rejection of perceived overreach of feminism.

Yet, some of the most competent, generous, and assiduous physicians in our department are moms and wives. They somehow manage to run the home operations, coordinate kids’ schedules, pack lunches (including their husbands’) and make homemade angel food cake with fresh whipped cream for dessert (it was delicious). I am in awe of their prodigious productivity and I realize that not all women can be like them nor all families like theirs.

Yet, I wonder how this trend might resonate — or clash — with the lives of the women in medicine more generally. The tradwife movement seems to offer a stark choice to the professional lives of female doctors, who find themselves at the intersection of high-stakes careers and the relentless demands of home. It raises questions about the pressures we place on ourselves and how we define success and fulfillment. The tradwife movement also reflects broader societal tensions — between tradition and progress, individualism and community, modernity and nostalgia. It invites us to reflect on our values and the choices we make, both in our personal lives and as a society.

Kaiser Permanente

We are fortunate that in 2024 so many women dedicate themselves to medicine. Having more women join medicine has improved the quality of care and the experience for our patients. In addition to the friction of inequalities such as bias, discrimination, and even assault for women in medicine, there is also the burden of unrealistic expectations that they can do it all. I don’t criticize tradwives for the choices they make but am ever more grateful for the women who have also added medicine as a priority.

As for assisting and accommodating women in medicine, we have come a way but can do more. At the least, rejecting the view that homemaking is women’s work would help. Often unnoticed is the immense volume of work that gets done at home by women. Men sharing more of this work-after-work can enable women to spend more time in their careers and not feel guilty that the homestead is suffering. Yes, doing the plant operations like fixing a leaky faucet is useful, but so would be getting the kids dressed, scheduling their volleyball, or prepping a lovely lunch for them.

Whilst it’s impossible for women in medicine to lead Instagrammable tradwife lives, we can get closer to it if we do our best to share the work. And I understand there is nothing sexier than a man scrambling eggs in an apron. Get ready, TikTok.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

“Why, I guess you can,” Ma said doubtfully. She did not like to see women working in the fields. Ma and her girls were … above doing men’s work. — Laura Ingalls Wilder

Sometimes a dad has to feed his little ones. I take pride in making my mac and cheese from scratch. Unlike those modern out-of-the-box dads, I grate fresh Parmesan and cheddar myself. Authentic, but I’m no match for the “Trad Wives.” For some, like Hannah Neelman known as @BallarinaFarms, mac and cheese takes days to prepare. She first has to milk the cows, boil the milk for cheese, gather eggs, and make pasta from home-milled flour. Instagram and TikTok are buzzing with tradwives like her. Tradwives, short for traditional wives, post and promote conventional values in gorgeous cottagecore images. Sometimes in prairie dresses, often cooking with Le Creuset pans on AGA ranges, they are proud to serve their husband and brood who wait patiently sitting at their (19th-century farmhouse) tables.

Somehow, this romanticizing of women in old-fashioned homemaking roles, cooking, cleaning, and caring for children is trending in 2024. There is a spectrum of viewpoints but most labeled as tradwives glorify women who choose to feed families rather than build careers. Offstage are their husbands who implicitly benefit from their wives’ choices and capabilities.

It’s no coincidence that this hot tradwife trend is both controversial and popular — nothing feeds the algorithm like drama and dispute. At the extreme of tradwife content are orthodox religious or alt-right posts advising women to be servants to their husbands and to put family as their only priority. Watch enough of this content and you’ll likely find the algorithm dripping controversial anti-vax and conspiracy content in your feed. The irresistible combination of bucolic images and rage bait has led to tradwife content being viewed hundreds of millions of times. Audience reactions of love or hate are visceral. But pitting career women against tradwives is a trap. Despite provocative “feminist women hate god and family” or “tradwives promote slavery” posts, most purveyors of this content seem to enjoy their roles and, if anything, are only looking for likes and paid promotions.

Women in medicine whom I spoke with didn’t seem bothered, or surprised, by the tradwife trend. Who doesn’t love idyllic scenes of family and homesteads? The trouble is the expectation that women be both. Competent doctor by day and wild blueberry scones by day as well. FIGS and frilly dresses. Rhomboid flaps and darned socks (though the stitch might be the same). This is why the tradwife trend showcases the most difficult, exacting, and time consuming of household chores — it’s physiologically impossible to see patients 50 hours a week and churn your own butter. The movement is trying to say it’s impossible to do both, so just choose one. As a former Juilliard-trained ballerina, Ms. Neelman was certainly accustomed to performing at the highest level. A generous interpretation of her work is that she cannot be it all and so choosing to be a homemaker is freeing even if perhaps not her life’s ambition. Whether her life is enjoyable or forced drudgery is only hers to know. It seems the contented homemaker might offer a different kind of empowerment — one that centers around domesticity and nurturing. A rejection of perceived overreach of feminism.

Yet, some of the most competent, generous, and assiduous physicians in our department are moms and wives. They somehow manage to run the home operations, coordinate kids’ schedules, pack lunches (including their husbands’) and make homemade angel food cake with fresh whipped cream for dessert (it was delicious). I am in awe of their prodigious productivity and I realize that not all women can be like them nor all families like theirs.

Yet, I wonder how this trend might resonate — or clash — with the lives of the women in medicine more generally. The tradwife movement seems to offer a stark choice to the professional lives of female doctors, who find themselves at the intersection of high-stakes careers and the relentless demands of home. It raises questions about the pressures we place on ourselves and how we define success and fulfillment. The tradwife movement also reflects broader societal tensions — between tradition and progress, individualism and community, modernity and nostalgia. It invites us to reflect on our values and the choices we make, both in our personal lives and as a society.

Kaiser Permanente

We are fortunate that in 2024 so many women dedicate themselves to medicine. Having more women join medicine has improved the quality of care and the experience for our patients. In addition to the friction of inequalities such as bias, discrimination, and even assault for women in medicine, there is also the burden of unrealistic expectations that they can do it all. I don’t criticize tradwives for the choices they make but am ever more grateful for the women who have also added medicine as a priority.

As for assisting and accommodating women in medicine, we have come a way but can do more. At the least, rejecting the view that homemaking is women’s work would help. Often unnoticed is the immense volume of work that gets done at home by women. Men sharing more of this work-after-work can enable women to spend more time in their careers and not feel guilty that the homestead is suffering. Yes, doing the plant operations like fixing a leaky faucet is useful, but so would be getting the kids dressed, scheduling their volleyball, or prepping a lovely lunch for them.

Whilst it’s impossible for women in medicine to lead Instagrammable tradwife lives, we can get closer to it if we do our best to share the work. And I understand there is nothing sexier than a man scrambling eggs in an apron. Get ready, TikTok.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

“Why, I guess you can,” Ma said doubtfully. She did not like to see women working in the fields. Ma and her girls were … above doing men’s work. — Laura Ingalls Wilder

Sometimes a dad has to feed his little ones. I take pride in making my mac and cheese from scratch. Unlike those modern out-of-the-box dads, I grate fresh Parmesan and cheddar myself. Authentic, but I’m no match for the “Trad Wives.” For some, like Hannah Neelman known as @BallarinaFarms, mac and cheese takes days to prepare. She first has to milk the cows, boil the milk for cheese, gather eggs, and make pasta from home-milled flour. Instagram and TikTok are buzzing with tradwives like her. Tradwives, short for traditional wives, post and promote conventional values in gorgeous cottagecore images. Sometimes in prairie dresses, often cooking with Le Creuset pans on AGA ranges, they are proud to serve their husband and brood who wait patiently sitting at their (19th-century farmhouse) tables.

Somehow, this romanticizing of women in old-fashioned homemaking roles, cooking, cleaning, and caring for children is trending in 2024. There is a spectrum of viewpoints but most labeled as tradwives glorify women who choose to feed families rather than build careers. Offstage are their husbands who implicitly benefit from their wives’ choices and capabilities.

It’s no coincidence that this hot tradwife trend is both controversial and popular — nothing feeds the algorithm like drama and dispute. At the extreme of tradwife content are orthodox religious or alt-right posts advising women to be servants to their husbands and to put family as their only priority. Watch enough of this content and you’ll likely find the algorithm dripping controversial anti-vax and conspiracy content in your feed. The irresistible combination of bucolic images and rage bait has led to tradwife content being viewed hundreds of millions of times. Audience reactions of love or hate are visceral. But pitting career women against tradwives is a trap. Despite provocative “feminist women hate god and family” or “tradwives promote slavery” posts, most purveyors of this content seem to enjoy their roles and, if anything, are only looking for likes and paid promotions.

Women in medicine whom I spoke with didn’t seem bothered, or surprised, by the tradwife trend. Who doesn’t love idyllic scenes of family and homesteads? The trouble is the expectation that women be both. Competent doctor by day and wild blueberry scones by day as well. FIGS and frilly dresses. Rhomboid flaps and darned socks (though the stitch might be the same). This is why the tradwife trend showcases the most difficult, exacting, and time consuming of household chores — it’s physiologically impossible to see patients 50 hours a week and churn your own butter. The movement is trying to say it’s impossible to do both, so just choose one. As a former Juilliard-trained ballerina, Ms. Neelman was certainly accustomed to performing at the highest level. A generous interpretation of her work is that she cannot be it all and so choosing to be a homemaker is freeing even if perhaps not her life’s ambition. Whether her life is enjoyable or forced drudgery is only hers to know. It seems the contented homemaker might offer a different kind of empowerment — one that centers around domesticity and nurturing. A rejection of perceived overreach of feminism.

Yet, some of the most competent, generous, and assiduous physicians in our department are moms and wives. They somehow manage to run the home operations, coordinate kids’ schedules, pack lunches (including their husbands’) and make homemade angel food cake with fresh whipped cream for dessert (it was delicious). I am in awe of their prodigious productivity and I realize that not all women can be like them nor all families like theirs.

Yet, I wonder how this trend might resonate — or clash — with the lives of the women in medicine more generally. The tradwife movement seems to offer a stark choice to the professional lives of female doctors, who find themselves at the intersection of high-stakes careers and the relentless demands of home. It raises questions about the pressures we place on ourselves and how we define success and fulfillment. The tradwife movement also reflects broader societal tensions — between tradition and progress, individualism and community, modernity and nostalgia. It invites us to reflect on our values and the choices we make, both in our personal lives and as a society.

Kaiser Permanente

We are fortunate that in 2024 so many women dedicate themselves to medicine. Having more women join medicine has improved the quality of care and the experience for our patients. In addition to the friction of inequalities such as bias, discrimination, and even assault for women in medicine, there is also the burden of unrealistic expectations that they can do it all. I don’t criticize tradwives for the choices they make but am ever more grateful for the women who have also added medicine as a priority.

As for assisting and accommodating women in medicine, we have come a way but can do more. At the least, rejecting the view that homemaking is women’s work would help. Often unnoticed is the immense volume of work that gets done at home by women. Men sharing more of this work-after-work can enable women to spend more time in their careers and not feel guilty that the homestead is suffering. Yes, doing the plant operations like fixing a leaky faucet is useful, but so would be getting the kids dressed, scheduling their volleyball, or prepping a lovely lunch for them.

Whilst it’s impossible for women in medicine to lead Instagrammable tradwife lives, we can get closer to it if we do our best to share the work. And I understand there is nothing sexier than a man scrambling eggs in an apron. Get ready, TikTok.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Adding baseline MRI to conventional prostate cancer risk stratification could improve prognostic accuracy, potentially affecting active surveillance and treatment decisions for some patients, according to the investigators on a new trial.

The multicenter, real-world trial showed that men with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease who had higher Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores at baseline were more likely to be reclassified with more aggressive disease on a future biopsy, wrote lead author Kiran R. Nandalur, MD and colleagues. The study was published in The Journal of Urology.

This means that without MRI, some cases of prostate cancer are being labeled as lower-risk than they actually are.

The investigators noted that MRI is increasingly being used to choose patients who are appropriate for active surveillance instead of treatment, but related clinical data are scarce.

Although PI-RADS is the preferred metric for characterizing prostate tumors via MRI, “most previous studies on the prognostic implications of baseline PI-RADS score included smaller populations from academic centers, limited inclusion of clinical and pathologic data into models, and/or [are] ambiguous on the implications of PI-RADS score,” they wrote.

These knowledge gaps prompted the present study.
 

How Were Baseline MRI Findings Related to Prostate Cancer Disease Risk?

The dataset included 1491 men with prostate cancer that was diagnosed at 46 hospital-based, academic, or private practice urology groups. All had low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease and had undergone MRI within 6 months before or after initial biopsy, along with enrollment in active surveillance.

“A novel aspect of this study was that the MRIs were not read by dedicated prostate MRI experts at academic institutions, but rather a mix of community and academic radiologists,” Dr. Nandalur, medical director of Corewell Health East Radiology, Royal Oak, Michigan, said in an interview.

After traditional risk factors were accounted for, baseline PI-RADS (four or more lesions) was significantly associated with increased likelihood of biopsy reclassification to high-grade prostate cancer on surveillance biopsy (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI 1.6-3.2; P < .001). 

“These patients with suspicious lesions on their initial MRI were more than twice as likely to have higher-grade disease within 5 years,” Nandalur noted. “This result was not only seen in the low-risk group but also in the favorable intermediate-risk group, which hasn’t been shown before.”

Grade group 2 vs 1 and increasing age were also associated with significantly increased risk for reclassification to a more aggressive cancer type.
 

How Might These Findings Improve Outcomes in Patients With Prostate Cancer?

Currently, 60%-70% of patients with low-risk disease choose active surveillance over immediate treatment, whereas 20% with favorable intermediate-risk disease choose active surveillance, according to Dr. Nandalur.

For low-risk patients, PI-RADS score is unlikely to change this decision, although surveillance intervals could be adjusted in accordance with risk. More notably, those with favorable intermediate-risk disease may benefit from considering PI-RADS score when choosing between active surveillance and immediate treatment.

“Most of the management strategies for prostate cancer are based on just your lab values and your pathology,” Dr. Nandalur said, “but this study shows that maybe we should start taking MRI into account — into the general paradigm of management of prostate cancer.”

Ideally, he added, prospective studies will confirm these findings, although such studies can be challenging to perform and similar data have historically been sufficient to reshape clinical practice.

“We are hoping that [baseline PI-RADS score] will be adopted into the NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines,” Dr. Nandalur said.
 

How Likely Are These Findings to Reshape Clinical Practice?

“The study’s large, multicenter cohort and its focus on the prognostic value of baseline MRI in active surveillance make it a crucial contribution to the field, providing evidence that can potentially refine patient management strategies in clinical practice,” Ismail Baris Turkbey, MD, FSAR, head of MRI Section, Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, said in a written comment.

“The findings from this study are likely to have a significant impact on clinical practice and potentially influence future guidelines in the management of localized prostate cancer, particularly in the context of active surveillance,” Dr. Turkbey said. “MRI, already a commonly used imaging modality in prostate cancer management, may become an even more integral part of the initial assessment and ongoing monitoring of patients with low or favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer.”

Dr. Turkbey noted several strengths of the study.  

First, the size and the diversity of the cohort, along with the variety of treatment centers, support generalizability of findings. Second, the study pinpoints a “critical aspect” of active surveillance by uncovering the link between baseline MRI findings and later risk reclassification. Finally, the study also showed that increasing age was associated with higher likelihood of risk reclassification, “further emphasizing the need for personalized risk assessment” among these patients.
 

What Were Some Limitations of This Study?

“One important limitation is the lack of inter-reader agreement for PI-RADS evaluations for baseline MRIs,” Dr. Turkbey said. “Variation of PI-RADS is quite known, and centralized evaluations could have made this study stronger. Same applies for centralized quality evaluation of MRIs using The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score. These items are difficult to do in a multicenter prospective data registry, and maybe authors will consider including these additional analyses in their future work.” 

How Does This New Approach to Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Compare With Recent Advances in AI-Based Risk Assessment?

Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted risk assessment in prostate cancer has been gaining increasing attention. Recently, for example, Artera, a self-styled “precision medicine company,” released the first AI tool to help patients choose between active surveillance and active treatment on the basis of analysis of digital pathology images. 

When asked to compare this approach with the methods used in the present study, Dr. Nandalur called the AI model “a step forward” but noted that it still relies on conventional risk criteria.

“Our data show imaging with MRI has independent prognostic information for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance, over and above these traditional factors,” he said. “Moreover, this predictive ability of MRI was seen in low and favorable intermediate risk groups, so the additive value is broad.”

Still, he predicted that the future will not involve a binary choice, but a combination approach.

“The exciting aspect is that MRI results can eventually be added to this novel AI model and further improve prediction models for patients,” Dr. Nandalur said. “The combination of recent AI models and MRI will likely represent the future paradigm for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance versus immediate treatment.”

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan. The investigators and Dr. Turkbey reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding baseline MRI to conventional prostate cancer risk stratification could improve prognostic accuracy, potentially affecting active surveillance and treatment decisions for some patients, according to the investigators on a new trial.

The multicenter, real-world trial showed that men with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease who had higher Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores at baseline were more likely to be reclassified with more aggressive disease on a future biopsy, wrote lead author Kiran R. Nandalur, MD and colleagues. The study was published in The Journal of Urology.

This means that without MRI, some cases of prostate cancer are being labeled as lower-risk than they actually are.

The investigators noted that MRI is increasingly being used to choose patients who are appropriate for active surveillance instead of treatment, but related clinical data are scarce.

Although PI-RADS is the preferred metric for characterizing prostate tumors via MRI, “most previous studies on the prognostic implications of baseline PI-RADS score included smaller populations from academic centers, limited inclusion of clinical and pathologic data into models, and/or [are] ambiguous on the implications of PI-RADS score,” they wrote.

These knowledge gaps prompted the present study.
 

How Were Baseline MRI Findings Related to Prostate Cancer Disease Risk?

The dataset included 1491 men with prostate cancer that was diagnosed at 46 hospital-based, academic, or private practice urology groups. All had low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease and had undergone MRI within 6 months before or after initial biopsy, along with enrollment in active surveillance.

“A novel aspect of this study was that the MRIs were not read by dedicated prostate MRI experts at academic institutions, but rather a mix of community and academic radiologists,” Dr. Nandalur, medical director of Corewell Health East Radiology, Royal Oak, Michigan, said in an interview.

After traditional risk factors were accounted for, baseline PI-RADS (four or more lesions) was significantly associated with increased likelihood of biopsy reclassification to high-grade prostate cancer on surveillance biopsy (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI 1.6-3.2; P < .001). 

“These patients with suspicious lesions on their initial MRI were more than twice as likely to have higher-grade disease within 5 years,” Nandalur noted. “This result was not only seen in the low-risk group but also in the favorable intermediate-risk group, which hasn’t been shown before.”

Grade group 2 vs 1 and increasing age were also associated with significantly increased risk for reclassification to a more aggressive cancer type.
 

How Might These Findings Improve Outcomes in Patients With Prostate Cancer?

Currently, 60%-70% of patients with low-risk disease choose active surveillance over immediate treatment, whereas 20% with favorable intermediate-risk disease choose active surveillance, according to Dr. Nandalur.

For low-risk patients, PI-RADS score is unlikely to change this decision, although surveillance intervals could be adjusted in accordance with risk. More notably, those with favorable intermediate-risk disease may benefit from considering PI-RADS score when choosing between active surveillance and immediate treatment.

“Most of the management strategies for prostate cancer are based on just your lab values and your pathology,” Dr. Nandalur said, “but this study shows that maybe we should start taking MRI into account — into the general paradigm of management of prostate cancer.”

Ideally, he added, prospective studies will confirm these findings, although such studies can be challenging to perform and similar data have historically been sufficient to reshape clinical practice.

“We are hoping that [baseline PI-RADS score] will be adopted into the NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines,” Dr. Nandalur said.
 

How Likely Are These Findings to Reshape Clinical Practice?

“The study’s large, multicenter cohort and its focus on the prognostic value of baseline MRI in active surveillance make it a crucial contribution to the field, providing evidence that can potentially refine patient management strategies in clinical practice,” Ismail Baris Turkbey, MD, FSAR, head of MRI Section, Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, said in a written comment.

“The findings from this study are likely to have a significant impact on clinical practice and potentially influence future guidelines in the management of localized prostate cancer, particularly in the context of active surveillance,” Dr. Turkbey said. “MRI, already a commonly used imaging modality in prostate cancer management, may become an even more integral part of the initial assessment and ongoing monitoring of patients with low or favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer.”

Dr. Turkbey noted several strengths of the study.  

First, the size and the diversity of the cohort, along with the variety of treatment centers, support generalizability of findings. Second, the study pinpoints a “critical aspect” of active surveillance by uncovering the link between baseline MRI findings and later risk reclassification. Finally, the study also showed that increasing age was associated with higher likelihood of risk reclassification, “further emphasizing the need for personalized risk assessment” among these patients.
 

What Were Some Limitations of This Study?

“One important limitation is the lack of inter-reader agreement for PI-RADS evaluations for baseline MRIs,” Dr. Turkbey said. “Variation of PI-RADS is quite known, and centralized evaluations could have made this study stronger. Same applies for centralized quality evaluation of MRIs using The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score. These items are difficult to do in a multicenter prospective data registry, and maybe authors will consider including these additional analyses in their future work.” 

How Does This New Approach to Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Compare With Recent Advances in AI-Based Risk Assessment?

Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted risk assessment in prostate cancer has been gaining increasing attention. Recently, for example, Artera, a self-styled “precision medicine company,” released the first AI tool to help patients choose between active surveillance and active treatment on the basis of analysis of digital pathology images. 

When asked to compare this approach with the methods used in the present study, Dr. Nandalur called the AI model “a step forward” but noted that it still relies on conventional risk criteria.

“Our data show imaging with MRI has independent prognostic information for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance, over and above these traditional factors,” he said. “Moreover, this predictive ability of MRI was seen in low and favorable intermediate risk groups, so the additive value is broad.”

Still, he predicted that the future will not involve a binary choice, but a combination approach.

“The exciting aspect is that MRI results can eventually be added to this novel AI model and further improve prediction models for patients,” Dr. Nandalur said. “The combination of recent AI models and MRI will likely represent the future paradigm for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance versus immediate treatment.”

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan. The investigators and Dr. Turkbey reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding baseline MRI to conventional prostate cancer risk stratification could improve prognostic accuracy, potentially affecting active surveillance and treatment decisions for some patients, according to the investigators on a new trial.

The multicenter, real-world trial showed that men with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease who had higher Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores at baseline were more likely to be reclassified with more aggressive disease on a future biopsy, wrote lead author Kiran R. Nandalur, MD and colleagues. The study was published in The Journal of Urology.

This means that without MRI, some cases of prostate cancer are being labeled as lower-risk than they actually are.

The investigators noted that MRI is increasingly being used to choose patients who are appropriate for active surveillance instead of treatment, but related clinical data are scarce.

Although PI-RADS is the preferred metric for characterizing prostate tumors via MRI, “most previous studies on the prognostic implications of baseline PI-RADS score included smaller populations from academic centers, limited inclusion of clinical and pathologic data into models, and/or [are] ambiguous on the implications of PI-RADS score,” they wrote.

These knowledge gaps prompted the present study.
 

How Were Baseline MRI Findings Related to Prostate Cancer Disease Risk?

The dataset included 1491 men with prostate cancer that was diagnosed at 46 hospital-based, academic, or private practice urology groups. All had low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk disease and had undergone MRI within 6 months before or after initial biopsy, along with enrollment in active surveillance.

“A novel aspect of this study was that the MRIs were not read by dedicated prostate MRI experts at academic institutions, but rather a mix of community and academic radiologists,” Dr. Nandalur, medical director of Corewell Health East Radiology, Royal Oak, Michigan, said in an interview.

After traditional risk factors were accounted for, baseline PI-RADS (four or more lesions) was significantly associated with increased likelihood of biopsy reclassification to high-grade prostate cancer on surveillance biopsy (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI 1.6-3.2; P < .001). 

“These patients with suspicious lesions on their initial MRI were more than twice as likely to have higher-grade disease within 5 years,” Nandalur noted. “This result was not only seen in the low-risk group but also in the favorable intermediate-risk group, which hasn’t been shown before.”

Grade group 2 vs 1 and increasing age were also associated with significantly increased risk for reclassification to a more aggressive cancer type.
 

How Might These Findings Improve Outcomes in Patients With Prostate Cancer?

Currently, 60%-70% of patients with low-risk disease choose active surveillance over immediate treatment, whereas 20% with favorable intermediate-risk disease choose active surveillance, according to Dr. Nandalur.

For low-risk patients, PI-RADS score is unlikely to change this decision, although surveillance intervals could be adjusted in accordance with risk. More notably, those with favorable intermediate-risk disease may benefit from considering PI-RADS score when choosing between active surveillance and immediate treatment.

“Most of the management strategies for prostate cancer are based on just your lab values and your pathology,” Dr. Nandalur said, “but this study shows that maybe we should start taking MRI into account — into the general paradigm of management of prostate cancer.”

Ideally, he added, prospective studies will confirm these findings, although such studies can be challenging to perform and similar data have historically been sufficient to reshape clinical practice.

“We are hoping that [baseline PI-RADS score] will be adopted into the NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines,” Dr. Nandalur said.
 

How Likely Are These Findings to Reshape Clinical Practice?

“The study’s large, multicenter cohort and its focus on the prognostic value of baseline MRI in active surveillance make it a crucial contribution to the field, providing evidence that can potentially refine patient management strategies in clinical practice,” Ismail Baris Turkbey, MD, FSAR, head of MRI Section, Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, said in a written comment.

“The findings from this study are likely to have a significant impact on clinical practice and potentially influence future guidelines in the management of localized prostate cancer, particularly in the context of active surveillance,” Dr. Turkbey said. “MRI, already a commonly used imaging modality in prostate cancer management, may become an even more integral part of the initial assessment and ongoing monitoring of patients with low or favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer.”

Dr. Turkbey noted several strengths of the study.  

First, the size and the diversity of the cohort, along with the variety of treatment centers, support generalizability of findings. Second, the study pinpoints a “critical aspect” of active surveillance by uncovering the link between baseline MRI findings and later risk reclassification. Finally, the study also showed that increasing age was associated with higher likelihood of risk reclassification, “further emphasizing the need for personalized risk assessment” among these patients.
 

What Were Some Limitations of This Study?

“One important limitation is the lack of inter-reader agreement for PI-RADS evaluations for baseline MRIs,” Dr. Turkbey said. “Variation of PI-RADS is quite known, and centralized evaluations could have made this study stronger. Same applies for centralized quality evaluation of MRIs using The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score. These items are difficult to do in a multicenter prospective data registry, and maybe authors will consider including these additional analyses in their future work.” 

How Does This New Approach to Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Compare With Recent Advances in AI-Based Risk Assessment?

Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted risk assessment in prostate cancer has been gaining increasing attention. Recently, for example, Artera, a self-styled “precision medicine company,” released the first AI tool to help patients choose between active surveillance and active treatment on the basis of analysis of digital pathology images. 

When asked to compare this approach with the methods used in the present study, Dr. Nandalur called the AI model “a step forward” but noted that it still relies on conventional risk criteria.

“Our data show imaging with MRI has independent prognostic information for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance, over and above these traditional factors,” he said. “Moreover, this predictive ability of MRI was seen in low and favorable intermediate risk groups, so the additive value is broad.”

Still, he predicted that the future will not involve a binary choice, but a combination approach.

“The exciting aspect is that MRI results can eventually be added to this novel AI model and further improve prediction models for patients,” Dr. Nandalur said. “The combination of recent AI models and MRI will likely represent the future paradigm for prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance versus immediate treatment.”

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan. The investigators and Dr. Turkbey reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Scientists at Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania have discovered a new antibiotic candidate in a surprising place: the human gut. 

In mice, the antibiotic — a peptide known as prevotellin-2 — showed antimicrobial potency on par with polymyxin B, an antibiotic medication used to treat multidrug-resistant infections. Meanwhile, the peptide mainly left commensal, or beneficial, bacteria alone. The study, published in Cell, also identified several other potent antibiotic peptides with the potential to combat antimicrobial-resistant infections.

The research is part of a larger quest to find new antibiotics that can fight drug-resistant infections, a critical public health threat with more than 2.8 million cases and 35,000 deaths annually in the United States. That quest is urgent, said study author César de la Fuente, PhD, professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

“The main pillars that have enabled us to almost double our lifespan in the last 100 years or so have been antibiotics, vaccines, and clean water,” said Dr. de la Fuente. “Imagine taking out one of those. I think it would be pretty dramatic.” (Dr. De la Fuente’s lab has become known for finding antibiotic candidates in unusual places, like ancient genetic information of Neanderthals and woolly mammoths.)  

The first widely used antibiotic, penicillin, was discovered in 1928, when a physician studying Staphylococcus bacteria returned to his lab after summer break to find mold growing in one of his petri dishes. But many other antibiotics — like streptomycin, tetracycline, and erythromycin — were discovered from soil bacteria, which produce variations of these substances to compete with other microorganisms. 

By looking in the gut microbiome, the researchers hoped to identify peptides that the trillions of microbes use against each other in the fight for limited resources — ideally, peptides that wouldn’t broadly kill off the entire microbiome. 
 

Kill the Bad, Spare the Good

Many traditional antibiotics are small molecules. This means they can wipe out the good bacteria in your body, and because each targets a specific bacterial function, bad bacteria can become resistant to them.

Peptide antibiotics, on the other hand, don’t diffuse into the whole body. If taken orally, they stay in the gut; if taken intravenously, they generally stay in the blood. And because of how they kill bacteria, targeting the membrane, they’re also less prone to bacterial resistance.

The microbiome is like a big reservoir of pathogens, said Ami Bhatt, MD, PhD, hematologist at Stanford University in California and one of the study’s authors. Because many antibiotics kill healthy gut bacteria, “what you have left over,” Dr. Bhatt said, “is this big open niche that gets filled up with multidrug-resistant organisms like E coli [Escherichia coli] or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.”

Dr. Bhatt has seen cancer patients undergo successful treatment only to die of a multidrug-resistant infection, because current antibiotics fail against those pathogens. “That’s like winning the battle to lose the war.”

By investigating the microbiome, “we wanted to see if we could identify antimicrobial peptides that might spare key members of our regular microbiome, so that we wouldn’t totally disrupt the microbiome the way we do when we use broad-spectrum, small molecule–based antibiotics,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The researchers used artificial intelligence to sift through 400,000 proteins to predict, based on known antibiotics, which peptide sequences might have antimicrobial properties. From the results, they chose 78 peptides to synthesize and test.

“The application of computational approaches combined with experimental validation is very powerful and exciting,” said Jennifer Geddes-McAlister, PhD, professor of cell biology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, who was not involved in the study. “The study is robust in its approach to microbiome sampling.” 
 

The Long Journey from Lab to Clinic

More than half of the peptides the team tested effectively inhibited the growth of harmful bacteria, and prevotellin-2 (derived from the bacteria Prevotella copri)stood out as the most powerful.

“The study validates experimental data from the lab using animal models, which moves discoveries closer to the clinic,” said Dr. Geddes-McAlister. “Further testing with clinical trials is needed, but the potential for clinical application is promising.” 

Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen anytime soon, said Dr. de la Fuente. “There is not enough economic incentive” for companies to develop new antibiotics. Ten years is his most hopeful guess for when we might see prevotellin-2, or a similar antibiotic, complete clinical trials.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Scientists at Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania have discovered a new antibiotic candidate in a surprising place: the human gut. 

In mice, the antibiotic — a peptide known as prevotellin-2 — showed antimicrobial potency on par with polymyxin B, an antibiotic medication used to treat multidrug-resistant infections. Meanwhile, the peptide mainly left commensal, or beneficial, bacteria alone. The study, published in Cell, also identified several other potent antibiotic peptides with the potential to combat antimicrobial-resistant infections.

The research is part of a larger quest to find new antibiotics that can fight drug-resistant infections, a critical public health threat with more than 2.8 million cases and 35,000 deaths annually in the United States. That quest is urgent, said study author César de la Fuente, PhD, professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

“The main pillars that have enabled us to almost double our lifespan in the last 100 years or so have been antibiotics, vaccines, and clean water,” said Dr. de la Fuente. “Imagine taking out one of those. I think it would be pretty dramatic.” (Dr. De la Fuente’s lab has become known for finding antibiotic candidates in unusual places, like ancient genetic information of Neanderthals and woolly mammoths.)  

The first widely used antibiotic, penicillin, was discovered in 1928, when a physician studying Staphylococcus bacteria returned to his lab after summer break to find mold growing in one of his petri dishes. But many other antibiotics — like streptomycin, tetracycline, and erythromycin — were discovered from soil bacteria, which produce variations of these substances to compete with other microorganisms. 

By looking in the gut microbiome, the researchers hoped to identify peptides that the trillions of microbes use against each other in the fight for limited resources — ideally, peptides that wouldn’t broadly kill off the entire microbiome. 
 

Kill the Bad, Spare the Good

Many traditional antibiotics are small molecules. This means they can wipe out the good bacteria in your body, and because each targets a specific bacterial function, bad bacteria can become resistant to them.

Peptide antibiotics, on the other hand, don’t diffuse into the whole body. If taken orally, they stay in the gut; if taken intravenously, they generally stay in the blood. And because of how they kill bacteria, targeting the membrane, they’re also less prone to bacterial resistance.

The microbiome is like a big reservoir of pathogens, said Ami Bhatt, MD, PhD, hematologist at Stanford University in California and one of the study’s authors. Because many antibiotics kill healthy gut bacteria, “what you have left over,” Dr. Bhatt said, “is this big open niche that gets filled up with multidrug-resistant organisms like E coli [Escherichia coli] or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.”

Dr. Bhatt has seen cancer patients undergo successful treatment only to die of a multidrug-resistant infection, because current antibiotics fail against those pathogens. “That’s like winning the battle to lose the war.”

By investigating the microbiome, “we wanted to see if we could identify antimicrobial peptides that might spare key members of our regular microbiome, so that we wouldn’t totally disrupt the microbiome the way we do when we use broad-spectrum, small molecule–based antibiotics,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The researchers used artificial intelligence to sift through 400,000 proteins to predict, based on known antibiotics, which peptide sequences might have antimicrobial properties. From the results, they chose 78 peptides to synthesize and test.

“The application of computational approaches combined with experimental validation is very powerful and exciting,” said Jennifer Geddes-McAlister, PhD, professor of cell biology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, who was not involved in the study. “The study is robust in its approach to microbiome sampling.” 
 

The Long Journey from Lab to Clinic

More than half of the peptides the team tested effectively inhibited the growth of harmful bacteria, and prevotellin-2 (derived from the bacteria Prevotella copri)stood out as the most powerful.

“The study validates experimental data from the lab using animal models, which moves discoveries closer to the clinic,” said Dr. Geddes-McAlister. “Further testing with clinical trials is needed, but the potential for clinical application is promising.” 

Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen anytime soon, said Dr. de la Fuente. “There is not enough economic incentive” for companies to develop new antibiotics. Ten years is his most hopeful guess for when we might see prevotellin-2, or a similar antibiotic, complete clinical trials.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Scientists at Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania have discovered a new antibiotic candidate in a surprising place: the human gut. 

In mice, the antibiotic — a peptide known as prevotellin-2 — showed antimicrobial potency on par with polymyxin B, an antibiotic medication used to treat multidrug-resistant infections. Meanwhile, the peptide mainly left commensal, or beneficial, bacteria alone. The study, published in Cell, also identified several other potent antibiotic peptides with the potential to combat antimicrobial-resistant infections.

The research is part of a larger quest to find new antibiotics that can fight drug-resistant infections, a critical public health threat with more than 2.8 million cases and 35,000 deaths annually in the United States. That quest is urgent, said study author César de la Fuente, PhD, professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

“The main pillars that have enabled us to almost double our lifespan in the last 100 years or so have been antibiotics, vaccines, and clean water,” said Dr. de la Fuente. “Imagine taking out one of those. I think it would be pretty dramatic.” (Dr. De la Fuente’s lab has become known for finding antibiotic candidates in unusual places, like ancient genetic information of Neanderthals and woolly mammoths.)  

The first widely used antibiotic, penicillin, was discovered in 1928, when a physician studying Staphylococcus bacteria returned to his lab after summer break to find mold growing in one of his petri dishes. But many other antibiotics — like streptomycin, tetracycline, and erythromycin — were discovered from soil bacteria, which produce variations of these substances to compete with other microorganisms. 

By looking in the gut microbiome, the researchers hoped to identify peptides that the trillions of microbes use against each other in the fight for limited resources — ideally, peptides that wouldn’t broadly kill off the entire microbiome. 
 

Kill the Bad, Spare the Good

Many traditional antibiotics are small molecules. This means they can wipe out the good bacteria in your body, and because each targets a specific bacterial function, bad bacteria can become resistant to them.

Peptide antibiotics, on the other hand, don’t diffuse into the whole body. If taken orally, they stay in the gut; if taken intravenously, they generally stay in the blood. And because of how they kill bacteria, targeting the membrane, they’re also less prone to bacterial resistance.

The microbiome is like a big reservoir of pathogens, said Ami Bhatt, MD, PhD, hematologist at Stanford University in California and one of the study’s authors. Because many antibiotics kill healthy gut bacteria, “what you have left over,” Dr. Bhatt said, “is this big open niche that gets filled up with multidrug-resistant organisms like E coli [Escherichia coli] or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.”

Dr. Bhatt has seen cancer patients undergo successful treatment only to die of a multidrug-resistant infection, because current antibiotics fail against those pathogens. “That’s like winning the battle to lose the war.”

By investigating the microbiome, “we wanted to see if we could identify antimicrobial peptides that might spare key members of our regular microbiome, so that we wouldn’t totally disrupt the microbiome the way we do when we use broad-spectrum, small molecule–based antibiotics,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The researchers used artificial intelligence to sift through 400,000 proteins to predict, based on known antibiotics, which peptide sequences might have antimicrobial properties. From the results, they chose 78 peptides to synthesize and test.

“The application of computational approaches combined with experimental validation is very powerful and exciting,” said Jennifer Geddes-McAlister, PhD, professor of cell biology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, who was not involved in the study. “The study is robust in its approach to microbiome sampling.” 
 

The Long Journey from Lab to Clinic

More than half of the peptides the team tested effectively inhibited the growth of harmful bacteria, and prevotellin-2 (derived from the bacteria Prevotella copri)stood out as the most powerful.

“The study validates experimental data from the lab using animal models, which moves discoveries closer to the clinic,” said Dr. Geddes-McAlister. “Further testing with clinical trials is needed, but the potential for clinical application is promising.” 

Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen anytime soon, said Dr. de la Fuente. “There is not enough economic incentive” for companies to develop new antibiotics. Ten years is his most hopeful guess for when we might see prevotellin-2, or a similar antibiotic, complete clinical trials.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.